Disposed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Magma Fincorp Limited

Bombay HC23 Jul 2024IA/1875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution application seeking substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank as decree holder in place of Magma Fincorp, based on a deed of assignment of loan dues under a 2019 award. The court allowed the substitution and directed amendments within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applicant substituted for original decree holder; amendments per schedule within three weeks and amended application served on respondents with affidavit of service.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Magma Fincorp Limited — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

IA 1875-24 in EXA 2203-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1875 OF 2024 IN

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2203 OF 2022

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ...Applicant In the matter between Magma Fincorp Limited ...Claimant V/s. Rajab Enterprises and Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/b O. M. Gujar Law Chambers for Applicant.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 23^rd JULY, 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This application seeks substitution of the Applicant in place and stead of the original decree holder.

¶10

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2024.07.24
15:00:06
+0530

¶11

Ms. Gogri, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant and submits that by deed of assignment dated 31^st March, 2021, the original decree holder has assigned the entire loan dues/debts payable by the Judgment Debtor(s) under the award dated 15^th July, 2019, together with the right/title/benefits accruing, financial documents and underlying security in favour of the Applicant and that the ApplicantBank has become the absolute owner of the amount receivable under

¶12

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶13

IA 1875-24 in EXA 2203-22.doc

¶14

the award dated 15^th July, 2019, with respect to loan agreement dated 21^st November, 2017, together with the security interest and hypothecated asset. That the Judgment Debtor(s) have already been intimated of the same by the decree holder. That, therefore, it is necessary to bring the Applicant on record in place and stead of the original decree holder.

¶15

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions, the Application is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a), which reads thus:-

¶16

“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow to delete the name of Original Decree Holder and substitute the present Applicant in place of the Original Decree Holder and further allow the Applicant to carry our amendments as per schedule”

¶17

Let the amendment as per the schedule be carried out within a period of three weeks and the amended application be served upon the Respondent(s) within a period of two weeks thereafter and an appropriate affidavit of service be filed in this regard.

¶18

The Application is allowed as above and disposed as such.

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Magma Fincorp Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Magma Fincorp Limited

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

Arunava Raha vs Sale Proceeds of the Vessel M v Tag 7 Imo NO.9379002

Hi-Tech Elastomers Limited vs Dbm Geotechinicals and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Captial Financial Services Ltd. vs M S Akant Kumar Jain

Shobhana Jayarajan vs Melayi Kandi Jayarajan

Sara Chemicals and Consultants a Proprietary Concern of Suni M. Arora vs Rayaprolu Prabhakar Sreenivas

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Private Limited and Anr.