Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shahaji Chavare

DRT18 Nov 2024OA/204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for outstanding dues and modified the future interest rate to 9% per annum simple interest, directed the sale of hypothecated assets, and issued a recovery certificate against the ex-partie borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of principal sum with future interest at 9% per annum; sale of hypothecated property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shahaji Chavare — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 20.09.2021 Registered on : 21.03.2022 Decided on : 18.11.2024 Duration : Y M D 03 01 28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE ( Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer ) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 204/2022.

¶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, C 27, 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 411006.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Shivaji Tukaram Chavare, Sant Sena Nagar, Chavare Wasti, Taluka Madha, District Solapur 413209.

¶7

2 Mrs. Suvarana Shivaji Chavare, Sant Sena Nagar, Chavare Wasti, Taluka Madha, District Solapur 413209.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 204/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.37,84,221/-

¶15

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18^th November, 2024)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.37,84,221/- together with future interest at contractual rate which is 10.41 and 9.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

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

¶19

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Construction	47,00,000	03.10.2018
Equipment Loan
WCTL	6,97,400	14.09.2020

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in

(OA No. 204/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation dated 31.10.2018 of Construction Equipment Rock Breaker CB Fine 23X Hydraulic Rock Breaker and Excavator Komatsu PC 210 LC 8 Hydraulic bearing Chassis and Engine No. N723928, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 19.07.2021, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 26.08.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 12.07.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

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. 204/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-10 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rate which is 10.41 and 9.25% 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.

¶36

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(A) Original Application No. 204/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶39

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.37,84,221/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Eighty

(OA No. 204/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 20.09.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of Construction Equipment Rock Breaker CB Fine 23X Hydraulic Rock Breaker and Excavator Komatsu PC 210 LC 8 Hydraulic bearing Chassis and Engine No. N723928, more particularly described in the Schedule of the Original Application. (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

Place : Pune Date : 18.11.2024

¶48

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶49

(OA No. 204/2022)

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

Sanap

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shahaji Chavare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shahaji Chavare

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Deepak Arun Bhosale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sneha Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus Chandrakant Ghadge

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Shourya Auto Pressing, Prop. Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal

Bank of India versus Shahaji Ghodake

Bank of India versus M/S Shri Bhagwati Traders Prop Mr. Kishor Kantilal Parmar