Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shashikant Chandrakant Patil

DRT30 May 2024OA/140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte recovery application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against two defendants for loan defaults. The court reduced the claimed future interest rate from the contractual 10.37% to 9% per annum while ordering the defendants to pay the principal sum and future interest along with recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Adjudicated sum of Rs.49,32,568/- payable with future interest at 9% per annum; Recovery Certificate issued; Authority to sell hypothecated assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shashikant… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 23.11.2021 Registered on : 25.02.2022 Decided on : 30.05.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 06 07

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE ( Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer ) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 140/2022.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C27, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 and Branch Office at 04^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune 411 006.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Shashikant Chandrakant Patil,

¶7

2 Mrs. Gitanjali Shashikant Patil, Both R/o : Manerajuri, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli 416 408. .. Defendants

¶8

APPEARANCES

¶9

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

(OA No. 140/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.49,32,568/-

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30^th May, 2024)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.49,32,568/- together with future interest at contractual rate i.e. @10.37% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶17

As per the loan applications dated 19.04.2018 and 02.03.2019 of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following financial facilities to the defendants.

¶18

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of Agreement
Commercial Equipment	43,97,036	24.04.2018
Loan Account No. CE 647748.
Commercial Equipment	44,52,121	03.03.2019
Loan Account No. CE 749323

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation

(OA No. 140/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

of Equipments i.e. Sany CB Hydraulic Excavator SY210LR Sany having Chassis and Engine No. 18SEY02124801 and JCB Excavator CB JS205 having Chassis No. 84857162 and Engine No. 5752772, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶24

In view of the economic distress caused by the COVID19 pandemic and at the request of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank had lent Rs.11,32,000/- under Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) vide Sanction Letter dated 01.09.2020.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 16.10.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 12.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rahul Gade, Authorized Representative of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan

(OA No. 140/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-12 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rate i.e. @10.37% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(A) Original Application No. 140/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶38

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.49,32,568/(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Five

(OA No. 140/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Hundred Sixty Eight only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23.11.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶43

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of Equipments i.e. Sany CB Hydraulic Excavator SY210LR Sany having Chassis and Engine No. 18SEY02124801 and JCB Excavator CB JS205 having Chassis No. 84857162 and Engine No. 5752772, more particularly described in the Schedule-A of the Original Application.

¶44

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

¶45

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 30.05.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶48

(OA No. 140/2022)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

Sanap

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shashikant Chandrakant Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shashikant Chandrakant Patil

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

Uco Bank versus Abhijit Kumar Mhetre

Bank of India versus Mr. Asif Khawaja Sayyad, Prop. of M/S. Heena Tours and Travels

Bank of Maharashtra versus Uttam

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Vijay Metalics

Bank of Maharashtra versus Pramod Shinde

Bank of India versus Somnath