Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Dattatray Kamathe

DRT22 Apr 2024OA/276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of Rs.35,29,181 from two defaulting borrowers. The court reduced the claimed future interest rate from 10.60% to 9% and restricted asset recovery to the hypothecated vehicles due to lack of detailed description for other collateral.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.35,29,181 with future interest @9% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; respondents can sell hypothecated vehicles.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Dattatray Kamathe — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 09.02.2022 Registered on : 01.04.2022 Decided on : 22.04.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 02 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE ( Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer ) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 276/2022.

¶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 411006.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Dattatray Mahadev Kamathe, Near Z P School Loni Gav, Loni Kalbhor, Pune 412201.

¶7

2 Dipali Dattatray Kamathe, Near Jilha Parishad School, Pune 412201.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 276/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant	Advocate Pradip Yadav.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.35,29,180=56

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 22^nd April, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.35,29,180=56 by rounding Rs.35,29,181/- together with future interest at contractual rate i.e. @10.60% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendant No.2 is a coborrower. As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following loan facilities to the defendants.

¶20

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Commercial Vehicle	Loan 24,00,000	26.12.2018
A/c No. 3885764
Commercial Vehicle	Loan 16,50,000	26.12.2018
A/c No. 4124930
WCTL (CV-4255321)	7,10,608	04.09.2020

(OA No. 276/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

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 of Tata LPT 2518 having RTO Registration No. MH-12-QW8233 and Tata LPT 1913 having RTO Registration No. MH-12SF-7002 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. Therefore, on 19.01.2022, 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 13.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rahul Gade, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-13 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 276/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

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 relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets except vehicles, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets excepts vehicles cannot be granted.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rate i.e. @10.60% 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. 276/2022 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.35,29,181/-

(OA No. 276/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Eighty One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 09.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of the Tata LPT 2518 having RTO Registration No. MH-12-QW-8233 and Tata LPT 1913 having RTO Registration No. MH-12-SF-7002, more particularly described in the Schedule-A of the Original Application.

¶45

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

¶46

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 22.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶49

(OA No. 276/2022)

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

Sanap

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Dattatray Kamathe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Dattatray Kamathe

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

Raju Danial versus The Recovery Officer- 2, Drt Pune and others

Bank of India versus Nandkumar Rajani

Hdfc Bank versus Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol Gunwant Patil

Canara Bank versus M/S Piyush Poly Print Prop Smt. Pushpawati Harichand Nahar (Deceased)

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Dinlaxmi Oil Mill Prop Shri. Vikas Dinkar Power

M/s Aceagro Biosciences Ltd. versus State Bank of India