Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Limoliner India Pvt. Ltd.

DRT9 Aug 2023OA/219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for debt recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the petitioner bank's claim for Rs. 1,08,11,867.98 p.a. plus future interest against jointly and severally liable defendants, who remained absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,08,11,867.98 p.a. with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicles and other properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Limoliner India Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application NO: 219 OF 2022

¶5

Kotak lvlahindra Bank Ltd., Branch Office at # 6-3- 7 LOg I llp / 3O2, 3'o Floor, Jewel Pavani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiquda, Hyderabad-500082. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Limoliner India^pvt. Ltd., Office at # Shiridi Sai Nilayam, 2nd Floor, Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. Rep. by its Autorised Signatory D Satish Kumar.

¶9

Also at;

¶10

Shop No.1, Shri Ramulu complex Opp: Metro Pillar No. 4826 Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072.

¶11

Mr. D. Satish Kumar S/o D Venkata Ramana Rao Aged 47 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Flat No.114, Hirise Paradise Apts, Ballampet Road, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 50OO72.

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy Defendants t'*ofr^on /^(/' ''^.t"^u t-,.

¶14

OA No.21912022

¶15

:: ORDER::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,08,11,867.98ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @ 18o/o p.a. with monthly rests from till the date of realisation along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicles.

¶17

Summons seTved on D1 and 2 through paper publication, they were set exparte on 72,09.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Abhishek, Legal Associate, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hypothecated vehicles?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents Viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Av.,v

¶23

(-(" '"''

¶24

OA No.2Lg l2O22

¶25

Viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.219/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs. 1,08,11,867.98ps i.e. sum of Rs. 15,50,532.25ps, Rs- 46,31,22o.72ps and Rs. 45,30,115.01ps under loan account numbers CV-42O374O, 4373A36 and 4374O4O respectively with future interest @ 8olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicles described in the OA schedule and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debu

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

0w*

OANo.Zl9l2O22

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of August, 2023 ) .

¶37

ffit'o

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

<.r-_

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Limoliner India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Limoliner India Pvt. Ltd.

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

Mr. Shrikant S/o Dattatraya Deshpande and others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Anil Kumar

Bank of India versus G. K. Enterprises

Sh Saravdeep Singh versus Hdfc Bank

Himanshu Kumar versus State Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Mudithareddy Papers Pvt. Ltd.