Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Deepak Arun Bhosale

DRT16 Nov 2024OA/251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd for recovery of a commercial equipment loan defaulting at Rs.33.19 lakh. The court directed the defendants to pay the principal plus future interest at 9% p.a. and authorized the sale of the hypothecated excavator.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.33,19,998.60 with future interest at 9% p.a. from filing date. Bank authorized to sell hypothecated equipment.

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

¶1

Presented on: 28.02.2022 Registered on: 01.04.2022 Decided on: 16.11.2024 Duration: Y M D 02 08 18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.251/2022.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd .,

¶4

A Banking Company registered under 22(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C27, G-Block, Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 and Branch Office at 4^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune - Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune - 411 006.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 . Mr. Deepak Arun Bhosale

¶8

R/at - Bhosale Wasti Charholi Bk. Alandi Rural, Pune Alandi Devachi, Near Waghwar Temple, Pune-412 105.

¶9

2 . Mrs. Sunita Arun Bhosale R/at - H.No.691, Charoli, Bhosale Mala, Taluka Haveli, … Defendants Near Bhaji Bazar, Pune-412 205.

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Mr. Pradip Yadav - Advocate. For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.33.19,998.60Ps.

(OA No.251/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 16^th November, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of sum of Rs.33,19,998.60Ps . due on 17.01.2022 together with pendilite and future interest @10.52%p.a. from 18.01.2022 till date of filing of the Original Application and thereafter till payment and or realization, from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendant No.1 & 2 approached to the Applicant Bank and applied for Commercial Equipment Loan facility on 28.06.2019. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the Defendants and sanctioned Commercial Equipment Loan of Rs.43,41,220/- for purchase of Commercial Equipment namely CB-HYDRAULIC-EXCAVATOR-JS-215-JCB bearing Chassis No.2916258, Engine No.84869599, in favour of the Applicant Bank by executing Loan Agreement dated 28.06.2019.

¶21

In order to secure the above said Loan Facilities, the Defendants have executed necessary loan transactions and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank, on certain terms and conditions.

(OA No.251/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank states that the hypothecated asset i.e. Commercial Equipment namely CB-HYDRAULICEXCAVATOR-JS-215-JCB bearing Chassis No.2916258, Engine No.84869599, is charged and hypothecated in favour of the Applicant Bank, more particularly described in par No.5.3 of the Original Application.

¶26

It is contended that after availing and utilizing the financial facilities towards Commercial Loan, the defendants have failed and/or neglected to make payments as per terms of Loan Agreement. The defendants have also not informed and intimated where about of the Hypothecated Equipment. In spite of request, the defendants had not given inspection of the hypothecated equipment. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 19.01.2022 issued Recall of Loan Notice to the Defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts of the said loan facilities. Despite service of Notice, Defendants failed & neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the Application proceeded ex-parte against the

(OA No.251/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

defendants vide Order dated 25.10.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶33

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Rahul Gade, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶34

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the True copy/Original loan documents at Exhs.AW-1 to AW-06, which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

Since the Defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶37

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.52% p.a. with monthly rests. But, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶38

11 Hence, I pass the following order: -

(OA No.251/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.251/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendant Nos.1&2 either jointly or severally shall pay a sum of Rs.33,19,998.60Ps (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Ninteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Eight and Sixty Paise only) to the Applicant Bank with future interest @9% p. a. from the date of filing of Original Application i.e.28.02.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by executing hypothecation of the construction equipment i.e.CB-HYDRAULIC-EXCAVATORJS-215-JCB bearing Chassis No.2916258, Engine No.84869599 in favour of the Applicant Bank, more particularly described in the Original Application.

¶46

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the above mentioned hypothecated Construction Equipment to recover its dues.

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/Place: Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 16.11.2024 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

(OA No.251/2022)

Page 5 of 5

[ANIL]

[ANIL] (OA No.251/2022) Page 6 of 5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Deepak Arun Bhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Deepak Arun Bhosale

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sneha Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus Chandrakant Ghadge

Idbi Bank versus Sanjay Andre

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

Bank of India versus Shahaji Ghodake

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shahaji Chavare