Allowed

Anand Cine Service Private Limited v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT8 Apr 2026MISC APPEAL/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by Anand Cine Service Pvt. Ltd. setting aside the dismissal of a maintenance application seeking removal of movables. The Tribunal held that since respondents had no objection and an inventory was produced, movables should be released subject to an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the maintenance application (MA 40/2025) was set aside, and movables were directed to be released within three weeks subject to execution of an indemnity bond.

Anand Cine Service Private Limited versus Kotak Mahindra Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 8th day of April, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA 26/2026

¶5

(arising out of MA No.40/2025 in TA No.1701 of 2023 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

Anand Cine Service Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By Its Director, Mr. A. Anand Prasad, No. 3, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600017.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

And

¶10

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Asset reconstruction Division, 6. Ms. Lakshmi, Rep, by its Vice President, D/o. late Mr. A.Ravishankar Prasad Mr. G. Ramachandran Srikanth. New Door No.3, Old No.2, 1st Floor, Ceebros Centre, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, No.39, Montieth Road, Chennai 600 017. Egmore, Chennai-600008. 7. Ms. Anjali D/o. late A. Ravishankar Prasad 2. M/s. Ravishankar Industries Ltd, New Door No.3, Old No.2, (In Liquidation) O/o. The Official Liquidator, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, High Court Madras, Corporate Bhavan, Chennai 600 017. Corporate Bhavan, 2nd Street, Chennai – 600 001. 8. Mrs. A. Indirani @ Indira Anand W/o. Late Anandha Rao, 3. A.Ravishankar Prasad (Deceased) New Door No.3, Old No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, 4. Mr.A.Manohar Prasad, Chennai 600 017. (Office of Official Assignee attached High Court of Judicature Madras) 9. Mr. C. Ramaiah, High Court of Madras, Madras High Court Advocate Commissioner, Building, Sree Ganesh Apartments, II Floor, Chennai-600104 No.51/31, 8th Street, Sowrashtra Nagar, 5. Mrs. Sai Sivajothi Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094 W/o. late A. Ravishankar Prasad New Door No.3, Old No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Counsel for appellants : M/s. Anns Princy A & Co. Counsel for Respondent 1 : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates Counsel for R 2, 4, 8 & 9 : None Counsel for Respondent 6 : M/s. R. Sowmya Counsel for Respondents 5&7 : M/s. Shubharanjani Ananth & Co.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellant is present. Learned Counsel for R1, R5 & R7 and R6 are present in VC.

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 20 of the RDB Act against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer at DRT-III, Chennai in MA 40/2025 in TA 1701/2023 dated 8.10.2025.

¶16

It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that MA 40/2025 was filed for removal of the movables that belonged to the Appellant lying at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.

¶17

Prior to filing of this appeal before DRT-III, Chennai, the Appellant filed an application before the Learned Recovery Officer for the same relief. The Learned Recovery Officer passed order dated 9.6.2025 granting permission for removal of movables by the Appellant. Since there was a delay in passing this order, the Appellant filed MA 40/2025 before Learned Presiding Office, DRT-III, Chennai. On coming to know about the pendency of MA 40/2025, the Learned Recovery Officer withdrew his order dated 9.6.2025. Thereafter, MA 40/2025 was dismissed by the Learned Presiding Officer on the ground that Appellant had not established ownership of the cinema equipments available in the secured asset. There is also an observation that “ the Appellant is the 3^rd party to the recovery proceedings and represented by its Director, Mr. M.A. Anand Prasad, who is the son of the 4^th Respondent, Mr. A. Manohar Prasad. Mr. Manohar Prasad is liable to pay his dues as a legal heir to the Respondent Bank. The legal heirs are scuttling the process of recovery. ” Observing these reasons, Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the MA 40/2025. Against this order, this appeal is filed.

¶18

During the course of the hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Appellant is running a cinema services company and for a long period, Appellant’s cinema equipments are kept in the premises, which is subject to the recovery proceedings. Since all the equipments and documents connected with the equipments are available in the premises which is locked by the Advocate Commissioner, Appellant is not in a position to list out the movables and thus, prove ownership. It is further submitted that the Respondents in this case, especially, the Certificate Debtors / owners of the building expressed no objection for returning the movables available in the secured asset. Thus, the Appellants

¶19

pray to set aside the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai and allow this appeal.

¶20

In response to the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Learned Counsel for R1 submitted that the counter filed in MA40/2025, an objection was taken that Appellant is bound to produce necessary documents before the Learned Recovery Officer to show that the said movables belong to it and are entitled to remove them. It is also said in the counter that Advocate Commissioner filed his report before the Learned Recovery Officer and the property is in the custody of the Tribunal and the Learned Recovery Officer be directed to consider the claim of the Appellant based on the verification and veracity of the statement. Effectively, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for R1 that on proving the entitlement, the Appellant may be permitted to remove the movables.

¶21

Learned Counsel for R4 and also Counsel appearing for R5 and R7, the legal representatives of deceased Mr. A Ravishankar Prasad submitted that they do not claim any ownership over the movable cinema equipments and also they have no objection for releasing the cinema equipments available in the secure d property to the Appellant. Despite service of notice on R2, the official liquidator of M/s. Ravishankar Industries Ltd., not appeared.

¶22

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶23

From the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties and from a perusal of the records, this Tribunal finds that the Respondents have no objection for the removal of cinema equipments from the secured asset. As directed, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners produced an inventory report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the cinema equipments and other movables belong to the Appellants.

¶24

In the light of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the documents connected with the cinema equipments are also available within the premises and that the Respondents have no objection for release of these equipments. since it belongs to the Appellant, this Tribunal is of the view that the Appellant may be permitted to remove the movables that are listed in the inventory report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, subject to

¶25

execution of Indemnity Bond in the name of the Respondent Bank against future claim, if any, by any other third party.

¶26

In this view of the matter, the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRTIII Chennai is set aside and this appeal is allowed as indicated above.

¶27

The movables shall be released within a period of three weeks from the date of issue of this order, on proper acknowledgement and subject to production of Indemnity Bond, as directed above.

¶28

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶29

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶30

Sd/(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

Anand Cine Service Private Limited v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Cine Service Private Limited v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rn Traders and 2 Others versus M/s. Ugro Capital Ltd.

Saletha K versus Bank of India

M S Ctr versus Bank of Baroda

M S Dhanapal Agency versus M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Roy Philip versus Central Bank of India

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpnld versus Canara Bank