Dismissed

Radhakrishnan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT23 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as settled out of court following an amicable one-time settlement between the appellant and the respondent bank, involving a partial payment and a release of pre-deposit from the appellant to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as settled; universal pre-deposit refunded to bank with interest for adjustment.

Radhakrishnan versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 23^rd Day of July, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

RA(SA) 102/2025

¶5

(Arising out of NDN (SA) No.2298/2024 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

B. Radhakrishnan, S/o Balasundaram, Old No.8, New No.15, Poes Road, Vanniya 2^nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶8

..…Appellant

¶9

And The Authorised Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank, 5^th Floor, Samson Tower, 402-L, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶10

….Respondent Bank

¶11

Counsel for Appellant : M/s S. Kannan & Co. Counsel for Respondent Bank : M/s S.K. Mariappan & Co.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This appeal is taken up for hearing as IA 916/2025 (Adv. Hearing) is allowed.

¶14

When the matter is taken up, Ld. Counsel for the appellant filed a Memo along with OTS Letter of the respondent bank dated 17.7.2025, stating that both parties have reached an amicable settlement for a sum of Rs.1,75,63,703/- and the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1.00 crore on 18.7.2025 and another sum of Rs.33,75,284/- on 21.7.2025 and the balance amount has to be paid on or before 28.7.2025.

¶15

¶16

Ld. Counsel for appellant sought permission to withdraw this appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties and also prayed for release of pre-deposit amount of Rs.41,88,319/- made at the time entertaining this appeal to the respondent bank to pay the balance amount of OTS on or before 28.7.2025.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank is present and has objection for releasing the pre-deposit.

¶18

In the light of the memo filed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant for withdrawal of the appeal on the basis of one time settlement arrived between the parties, this appeal RA 102/2025 is dismissed as settled out of court.

¶19

Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶20

Since Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed for release of pre-deposit to make the balance amount of OTS on or before 28.7.2025, the following order is passed.

¶21

“Registry is directed to refund the entire pre-deposit amount of Rs.41,88,319/- along with accrued interest, if any, directly to the respondent bank. Respondent bank, in turn, is directed to adjust the same towards the balance amount to be paid by the appellant on or before 28.7.2025, as per the terms of compromise arrived at between the appellant and the respondent bank vide OTS letter of the respondent bank dated 17.7.2025, and release the balance to the appellant”.

¶22

Sd/[Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶23

Radhakrishnan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Neo Furniture versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)

Rafeek raja versus Sundaram Small Finance Bank Limited

Saju a versus Indian Overseas Bank

P Rajaretnam versus Indian Bank

PNB versus W.S.Somasekaran & Ors.

H.Amarnath versus Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors.