Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Deokar Enterprises

DRT14 Jun 2023OA/14/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for recovery of financial dues from defaulting borrowers was allowed ex parte after the defendants failed to appear. The court directed payment of principal and future interest and authorized the sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of loan amounts with future interest and authority to sell hypothecated commercial equipment for recovery.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Deokar Enterprises — Insurance | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 04.08.2021 Registered on: 10.01.2022 Decided on: 14.06.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 10 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.14/2022

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, A banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) and having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Having Branch Office at 4th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune – Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Deokar Enterprises 1001 Juni Wadarwadi Opp. Akashganga Society, Model Colony Pune – 411 016

¶8

Mr. Lalu Kaluram Deokar Behind Kavita Hotel Mahale Nagar, 1001, Juni Wadarwadi, Deep Bangala Chowk,

(OA No.14/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[SRD]

Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016

¶13

Mrs. Renuka Kaluram Deokar Behind Kavita Hotel Mahale Nagar, 1001, Juni Wadarwadi, Deep Chowk Bangala Chowk, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016

¶14

… Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant Mr. Pradeep Yadav - Advocate For Defendants None (Ex parte)

¶17

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.62,05,800.72Ps.

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on 14^th June, 2023)

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.62,05,800.72Ps. i.e. Rs.50,09,465.59Ps. (Loan-I) together with future interest thereon @9.1% per annum and Rs.11,96,335.13Ps. together with future interest thereon @8% per annum from 4^th August, 2021 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

Defendant No. 1 as Principal Borrower and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as co-borrowers approached the applicant Bank for seeking financial assistant for Construction Equipment Loan and accordingly on 3^rd November, 2019 the applicant Bank

(OA No.14/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[SRD]

sanctioned and disbursed Loan of Rs.58,14,000/- (Loan-I) to the defendants.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that an Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) was unveiled as a part of the comprehensive package announced by the Ministry of Finance Government of India, on 13^th May, 2020 to aid eligible Business Enterprises/Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector in view of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent to the same and at the request of defendant No. 1 the applicant Bank had lent and advanced financial facilities under the said special scheme of ECLGS under the sanction letter dated 17^th July, 2020 for an amount of Rs.11,03,400/-(Loan-II) with certain terms and conditions.

¶28

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents and Hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in Schedule “A” of the Original Application.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that defendants failed and neglected to pay the amounts due in the aforesaid Loan-I and Loan-II accounts respectively, as per the terms of Loan Agreement. Hence, the accounts of the defendants were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 18^th January, 2021.

¶30

Further, on 3^rd July, 2021 the applicant Bank issued Recall

(OA No.14/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[SRD]

cum Invocation of Guarantee Notice for the financial facilities granted to defendant No. 1 under Loan-I and Loan-II. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶35

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against him vide order dated 10^th January, 2023 below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶37

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Rahul Gade, Authorized Representative of Applicant Bank, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶38

The applicant Bank has also produced list of documents thereby adducing in evidence the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/9 which corroborate the case of the applicant.

¶39

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

¶40

Since the defendants 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.

(OA No.14/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[SRD]

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No.14/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Loan-I account sum of Rs.50,09,466/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Six only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 4^th August, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶48

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Loan-II account sum of Rs.11,96,335/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Five only) with future interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 4^th August, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting hypothecation i.e. commercial Equipment namely Equipment CB_EXCAVATOR

(OA No.14/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[SRD]

MODEL SK220XD OF KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION, bearing Engineer Chassis No. YQ15510367 and Engine No. J05ETA51751, more particularly described in the Schedule “A” of the Original Application.

¶54

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated asset to recover its dues.

¶55

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶56

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant Bank and defendants.

¶57

Place: Pune Date: 14.06.2023

¶58

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶59

(OA No.14/2022)

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

[SRD]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Deokar Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Deokar Enterprises

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandav

Mangal Nagnath Parkale versus Bank of Maharashtra

Canara Bank versus Jadhav Dairy Farm

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Tambile

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abhijeet

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda