Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mrs Poonam

DRT30 Jun 2026OA/941/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues as the defendant appeared ex-parte. The court fixed future interest at 9% p.a. instead of the claimed 10.75% and denied relief on hypothecated assets due to lack of details.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of sum Rs.28,77,603/- with future interest @9% per annum from date of filing equity application until realization of entire dues and issue of recovery certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs Poonam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 12.02.2022 Registered on .. 13.06.2023 Decided on .. 30.06.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--04--18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 941/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶4

A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its head office at ―Lokmangal‖, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its branch office at – Hi Tech Agri Branch, Sinhagad Road, Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Poonam Sandeep Kamble, Prop. M/s. Namo Enterprises, 539, Lohiyanagar, Ganj Peth, Pune 411 042.

¶8

Also at :

¶9

Shop No. 2, S.No. 692, Berojgar Mini Market, Market Yard, Pune 411 037.

¶10

… Defendant

¶11

Appearances :-

¶12

For Applicant Advocate Sudha Koloti. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶13

Sanap ( OA No.941/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.28,77,603/-

¶15

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30^th June, 2026)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.28,77,603/- together with future interest @10.75% per annum from 10.02.2022 till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶18

The defendant is the sole proprietress of the proprietorship firm. As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term loan facility of Rs.24,50,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 27.09.2018.

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed deed of hypothecation dated 01.10.2018 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶20

The defendant has made last payment towards the loan account on 07.03.2020.

¶21

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 01.04.2021, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the

¶22

Sanap ( OA No.941/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶23

defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 10.06.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶24

Hence, this application is filed.

¶25

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 25.03.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶26

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pravin Arun Purbhe, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-14 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶27

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶28

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶29

Sanap ( OA No.941/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.75% per annum from 10.02.2022 till realization of the entire dues. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶32

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

A} Original Application No. 941/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶35

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.28,77,603/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred Three only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶36

Sanap ( OA No.941/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶37

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶38

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶39

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 30.06.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No.941/2023 ) 5 of 5

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mrs Poonam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mrs Poonam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/S. Asia Auto Net, Prop. Kirti Ashish Gatkal

durga Associates versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Babasaheb Dongare

Bank of India versus Gunda Sahir Waghmode

Pushpam Plaza Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Pushpam Plaza Private Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank