Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kotian Sharad Krishna

DRT20 Jul 2023OA/418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a loan recovery application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited against Sharad and Sunita Kotian. The bank secured a commercial vehicle term loan and a working capital term loan under ECLGS. The defendants defaulted on repayments, and the account was declared NPA. The defendants failed to appear or submit a written statement. The Tribunal directed the defendants

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay principal, interest, and charges within 60 days; recovery to be effected from assets; Recovery Certificate was to be issued forthwith.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kotian Sharad Krishna — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶2

Registered on : 24.08.2022 Decided on : 20.07.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 418 of 2022

¶5

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED , ) A Banking Company within the meaning of the ) Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered ) Under the Companies Act, 1856 and having its ) Registered office at 27, BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra) Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ) and one of )

¶6

its branch office at 8^th Floor, Admas Plaza, 166/16,) CST Road, Kolivery Village, Kunchi Kurve Nagar, ) Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai- 400 098 and ) Mr. Surendra Mishra is authorized to sign the ) Application ) ...APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SHARAD KRISHNA KOTIAN ) Janat Education Soc Bldg Kher Nagar ) Purshottam High School Bandra East ) Mumbai- 400 051 Maharashtra – India )

¶9

SUNITA SHARAD KOTIAN ) J E Society Building 2^nd Floor Lion K B ) Kotian Marg Kher Nagar Bandra East ) Mumbai- 400 051 Maharashtra – India ) ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Page 1 of 6

¶11

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Adv. Shashikant Gaikwad Counsel for the Defendants : Ex -parte

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.63,45,353.56/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Fifty Six Only) towards Loan (I) and Rs. 11,91,337.06/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Six Only) towards Loan (II) as on 07/07/2021 together with further interest and other charges thereon at contractual rates upon the footing of compound interest until payment/realization.

¶15

The facts succinctly set out in the Original Application are that Defendants vide their Loan Application dated 30/10/2019 requested the Applicant to grant them Commercial Vehicle Loan for sum of Rs. 60,80,310/- per APAC. It is stated that the Applicant accepted to the said request of Defendants and agreed to grant the said Commercial Vehicle Loan for the sum of Rs.60,80,310.00 to the Defendants for purchase of the following vehicles:

¶16

i. 2420047- Commercial Vehicles – LCV – Tata Motors Ltd. – Tata Cityrideex 40+1SKOOL LP912/49BS3

¶17

ii. 2420060- Commercial Vehicles – LCV – Tata Motors Ltd. – Tata Cityrideex 40+1SKOOL LP912/49BS3.

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶20

iii. 2420055- Commercial Vehicles – LCV – Tata Motors Ltd. – Tata Cityrideex 40+1SKOOL LP912/49BS3.

¶21

The said loan was to be paid in 47 EMIs of Rs.51,850/- with interest @ 9.5% per annum.

¶22

In consideration of the Applicant having agreed to grant the said Loan (I), the Defendants have signed, executed and delivered in favour of the Applicant, the following security documents:

¶23

i. Loan cum Guarantee Agreement.

¶24

ii. Agreement Schedule dated 02.11.2019 for Rs. 60,80,310/-.

¶25

iii. Demand Promissory Note dated 02.11.2019 for Rs. 60,80,310/-.

¶26

iv. Power of Attorney dated 02.11.2019.

¶27

v. Loan-cum Guarantee Agreement signed and executed by Defendant No.1 & 2.

¶28

It is further stated that the in order to secure the above loan facility, the Defendants hypothecated the abovementioned vehicles in favour of the Applicant.

¶29

It is further stated 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 13.05.2020 to aid eligible Business Enterprises/Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector in view of the

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶32

economic distress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Subsequent to the same, the Defendant No.1 vide their request letter have requested for Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.11,52,053/- and the said requested was considered by the Applicant and sanctioned the Special Scheme of ECLGS vide sanction letter dated 15.-0.2020 for an amount of Rs.11,52,053/-. In consideration of sanction the said Loan-II, the Defendant No.1 executed the Term Loan Agreement dated 05.10.2020 and Deed of Hypothecation dated 05.10.2020 in favour of the Applicant.

¶33

However, after availing the said loan, the Defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and neglected to make the payment to the Applicant bank. Therefore, the account was declared as NPA on 05.04.2021. Thereafter, the Applicant issued notice through Advocate dated 09.07.2021 called upon the Defendants to pay the outstanding dues of both the Loan Accounts but they failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed by the Applicant.

¶34

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Defendants nor any WS has been filed, thus, they were proceeded ex-parte vide even dated 16/06/2023 order.

¶35

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through their Manager Mr. Surendra Mishra.

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶38

I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶39

The witness of the Applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of the Defendant No.1 & 2 is joint and several.

¶40

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendants.

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

a. I allow this OA and direct the Defendant No.1 & 2 to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs.63,45,353.56/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Fifty Six Only) towards Loan (I) and Rs. 11,91,337.06/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Six Only) towards Loan (II) as on 07/07/2021, together with further interest and other charges thereon at contractual rates upon the footing of compound interest until payment/realization.

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

O. A. NO.418 of 2022

¶45

b. Failing which amount shall be recovered from the hypothecated vehicles as well as other personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.

¶46

c. Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶47

d. Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶48

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.

¶49

Sd/Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date :20.07.2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶50

Page 6 of 6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kotian Sharad Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kotian Sharad Krishna

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

Assets Reconstruction Company India Limited versus the Official Liquidator

Union Bank of India versus Navbharat Insulation and Engineering Co.

Canara Bank versus Nathurmal Eco Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Man Infraproject Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)

Idbi Bank versus Ranjit

Canara Bank versus Liberty chemist