Dismissed

Prateek Mittal v. Kotak Mahindra Investments Limited

DRT27 Oct 2023SA/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the applicant sought to defer possession of a flat, challenging the respondent's claim of penal interest. The Divisional Court held that the parties had expressly agreed to a 3% compounded monthly penal interest rate in a 2017 sanction letter. The court found no merit in the applicant's late objection and declined the application.

What did the court decide?

The interim application for deferral of possession is declined as the objection regarding penal interest is not sustainable.

Prateek Mittal versus Kotak Mahindra Investments… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

27/10/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in SA 7 of 2023* *Prateek Mittal Vs Kotak Mahindra* *Investments Limited*	Next date
		Advocate Rajesh Nagory a/w Anya J. a/w Vishalakshmi S. appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Sachin Chandarana a/w Advocate V. Gosalia a/w Mr. A. Shah i/b Manilal Kha Ambalal & Co. appeared for the Respondent IA No. 3117/2023 1. By way of the present IA applicant is praying that steps including taking physical possession of the property of the Flat No. 2 on 1st floor admeasuring 2166.81 sq. fts., of building famously known as Mittal Bhavan (in Mittal Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited) situated on land admeasuring 731.33 sq. mtrs. or thereabout and bearing CTS No. 2/674 of thee Malabar & Cumballa Hill Division at 62-A, Pedar
		Road, Mumbai-400 026 (hereinafter referred to as “property in question”) may be deferred.

¶2

¶3

Ld. for the Applicant submits that Respondents are claiming exorbitant penal interest in the present matter. 3. He submits that the principal amount is only 10 crores whereas penal interest is around 9 crores, therefore, the action of the Respondents is against the settled legal position as well as the judgement of Hon'ble Apex court. Thus, he submits that Respondents may be restained from taking possession of the property in question. 4. On the other hand, Ld. for the Respondents strongly objected on the present IA and submits that Applicant on the last moment pressing the present IA and further the penal interest has been charged in accordance to the sanction letter dated 29/06/2017 as well as facility agreement dated 30/06/2017. Thus, he submits objection of the Applicant is against the sanction letter and therefore the same may be rejected. 5. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble apex court Grasim

¶4

¶5

Industries Limited and Another	Vs
Agarwal Steel (2010) (1 SSC 83) and	L &
T Housing finance Ltd Vs Tri	shul
Developers and also judgement	of
Hon'ble High Court in ASREC (India) Vs Fastgrowth Hospitality LLP.	Ltd
6. Considered the contention of the pa and gone though the record.	rties
7. Record reveals that by the sanction le	tter
dated 28/06/2017 both parties agr	eed
that penal interest shall be charged	3 %
p.a compounded monthly	on
outstanding/ unpaid amount (Anne	x. C
of the SA). Thus, parties in 2017 w	ere
agreed for a specific rate of penal inte	rest
therefore, any objection now of	the
Applicant is not sustainable.
8. In view of the above_prima facie_I do	not
find merit in the present Inte	rim
application and thus same is her	eby
declined. D	P.O. RT-I

¶6

Tjs/-1

¶7

Prateek Mittal v. Kotak Mahindra Investments Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Mittal v. Kotak Mahindra Investments Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Vinodkumar

Bank of Baroda versus Mr Dinar Leo Barros

Bank of India versus Mr Deepak Uttam Naik and Ors.

Indian Bank versus Mr. Agyendra Bauyelal Jha

Tata Communication Limited versus Doha Bank Qsc and Iridium India Telecom Limited

Jitendra Girdharilal Mehta versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)