Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S a R Traders

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/1433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 27.22 lakh against defendants who failed to contest the proceedings. The court ordered payment of principal, interest at 8.60%, and a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly pay Rs. 27,22,881.83 with interest at 8.60% p.a.; Recovery Certificate to be issued; injunction against transferring assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S a R Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Applicotion No. - 1433122

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 15th Ground Ftoor, Dhand Compound, Behind Potice Headquarter, Civi[ Lines, Bhopat (M.P.)

¶6

..... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s A.R. Traders

¶9

Shri Sumant Chaturvedi

¶10

Shri Suresh Kumar

¶11

(Att at E-41168, Behind Otd Champion Schoot, Arera Cotony, Bhopat, M.P. 462016)

¶12

..... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Admayia Bajpai,^Advocate Defendants : Ex'parte

¶14

JUDGAAENT

¶15

(Dated : 18th March, 20241

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^present Originat^Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on^{05109122against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 27,22,881.83^{(RupeesTwentySevenLac,} Twenty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty One and^{Paisa Eighty Three} onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the^requestof DefendantNo.-1 and 2, the Appticant Bank sanctioned^{WorkingCapitalLoan} of Rs. 100 Lac and Overdraft of Rs. 100^Lac on^{23108118.ln considerationof} the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant^{No.-1 &.2 as borrowersand} Defendant No.-3 as^guarantor executed^{requisite loan and guarantee} documents on 24108/18. The Defendants^{avaited the credit facititiesbut} faited to tiquidate the outstanding^{dues despite issuance of LegatNoticeon} 75111121 and on 18/01 127 by the Appticant^{Bank. The Appticant-Bankhas} retied upon the documents at Ex.^{A-1 to A-10which were proved by Shri} Mrigendra Singh, Senior Manager.

¶18

¶19

oA 1433122

¶20

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18/08/23. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has claimed interest @8.65% p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @8.60% p.a. simpte pendentetite and future titt reatization of the dues. The personal properties and assets of the Defendants are tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due.

¶21

The Originat Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶22

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 27,22,881.83 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lac, Twenty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighty One and Paisa Eighty Three onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @8.60% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 05109122, with costs titt its reatization.

¶23

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl the personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶24

iii) A Recovery certificate be issued u/s 1g(zz) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may fite a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶25

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 18th Day of March, zoz4.

¶26

k'
( Patet)
Presidins Officer

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S a R Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S a R Traders

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Moolchand Kushwaha

Cent Bank Home Finance Limited versus Sujeet Shasmal

Cent Bank Home Finance Limited versus Shri Syed Mohammad Yahya

Pawan Agrawal versus cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Mevalal Yadav and Ors. versus L N T Finance Ltd.

Ms Sahu Oil Mill versus Punjab National Bank