Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ajit Patil

DRT18 Jan 2023OA/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex parte application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of commercial loan dues from borrowers who failed to appear. The court reduced the claimed future interest rate and granted relief for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.22,13,315/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from filing date. Permission to sell hypothecated vehicle. Issue of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ajit Patil — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 02.08.2021 Registered on: 10.01.2022 Decided on: 18.01.2023 Duration: Y M D 01 05 16

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.06/2022

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

¶5

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 (E), Mumbai– 400 051 having Branch Office at 4^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune – Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Ajit Sanjay Patil R/at: Patil Vasti Ghatane Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur – 413 208

¶9

Mrs. Manisha Ashok Patil R/at: Patil Vasti Ghatane Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur – 413 208

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

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

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.22,13,315.35Ps.

(OA No.06/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ srd ]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18^th January, 2023)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs. 22,13,315.35Ps. i.e. Rs.20,63,000/(Commercial Equipment Loan Facility) together with future interest @10.26% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.3,52,900/- (WCTL) @9.25% per annum with monthly rests thereon from 4^th July, 2021 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are borrowers who approached the applicant Bank for availing commercial Equipment Loan facility of Rs.18,55,833.35Ps. (Loan-I) which is further enhanced by Rs.3,57,482/- (Loan-II) for purpose of buying vehicle and accordingly on 11^th June, 2019 and 14^th September, 2020 respectively the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the said facilities to defendant Nos.1 & 2.

¶20

In order to secure both the loan facilities, defendant Nos.1 & 2 executed Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the applicant Bank thereby hypothecating Commercial Vehicle i.e. TATA LPK 1618 truck, more particularly described in

(OA No.06/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ srd ]

Schedule - A of the Original Application.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that defendant No.1 & 2 failed to maintain the account as per contract of sanction. Hence, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 6^th May, 2021.

¶26

Thereafter, on 3^rd July, 2021 the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendants and thereby demanded outstanding loan amounts together with interest and other charges. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed to repay the said amounts.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons.

¶29

Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 13^th September, 2022 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶30

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

¶31

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

(OA No.06/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ srd ]

AW-1/10 which corroborate the case of the applicant.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.26% per annum (Loan-I) and 9.25% per Annum (Loan-II) with monthly rests. However, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable.

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(A) Original Application No.6/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶42

(B) Defendant Nos.1 & 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Term Loan Facility account the aggregate sum of Rs.22,13,315/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original

(OA No.06/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ srd ]

Application i.e. 2^nd August, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting hypothecation of the movable property i.e. Commercial Equipment namely Equipment TATA LPK 1618 bearing RTO No.MH-45AF-3711 more particularly described in the Schedule – A Original Application.

¶48

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

¶49

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

Place: Pune Date: 18.01.2023

¶52

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

¶53

(OA No.06/2022)

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

[ srd ]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ajit Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ajit Patil

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Thorat

Palm Kernal India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Nitinbhai Sanmukhbhai Patel S/O. Sanmukhbhai Dhaya Patel

Rbl Bank Ltd. versus Ms Abhiraj Corporation

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Daily Janapravas Prop Sanjay Pralhad Bhokare

Ms Shreevardhan Agro Pvt. Ltd. versus Indus Orgo Farmers Allied Industries Private Limited