Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Mahesh Patil and Company

DRT31 Jul 2024OA/283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd for recovery of a loan advanced to respondent companies. The Tribunal directed repayment of the principal amount with future interest and secured it through hypothecation of specific commercial equipment.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.25,33,744.85 with future interest at 9% p.a.; hypothecation of specified commercial equipment enforced and entitlement to sell granted.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Mahesh Patil and… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 23.11.2021 Registered on: 24.03.2022 Decided on: 31.07.2024 Duration: Y M D 02. 08 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.283/2022.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd .,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its Registered Office at 27 KBC, 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

M/s Mahesh Patil & Company, RS No.657, Banapuri, Taluka-Patan, Karad, Satara-415 112. 2. Mr. Mahesh Raghunath Patil 3. Mrs. Swati Mahesh Patil Both R/at - 554, Banpuri, Taluka-Patan, Karad, Satara- 415 112.

¶8

… Defendants

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶11

Mr. Pradip Yadav - Advocate. Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.25,33,744.85Ps.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 31^st July, 2024)

(OA No.283/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.25,33,744.85Ps . (i.e. Rs.44,18,000/towards Commercial Equipment Loan-I and Rs.06,06,200/towards ECLGS Loan -II) as on 14.10.2021 together with future interest and other charges thereon at the contractual rates upon the footing of compound interest until payment/ realization as specifically brought out in the particulars of the claim application, from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendant No.1 is proprietorship concern and Defendant No.2 is the Sole Proprietor. Defendant No.1 is borrower and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are co-borrowers. Defendants approached the Applicant Bank with a request for loan. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the Defendants and sanctioned the following financial facilities to the defendants.

¶21

Sr. No.	Date of Agreement	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1.	30.09.2018	Commercial Equipment Loan - I(No.CE-690995)	Rs.22,09,000/-
2.	01.10.2018	Commercial Equipment Loan- I(No.CE-691002)	Rs.22,09,000/-
3.	29.06.2020	ECLGS Loan-II (No.CE-866350)	Rs.06,05,200/-
		Total Exposure	Rs. 50,23,200/-

(OA No.283/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

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.

¶26

The Applicant Bank states that the hypothecated assets described in Schedule-A are charged by the defendants for securing the repayments of the amounts due and payable under the said credit facilities.

¶27

It is contended that after availing and utilizing the financial facilities towards Loan (I) as well as financial facilities granted under Loan (II), the defendants have failed and/or neglected to make payments as per terms of Loan Agreement and hence, the accounts of the Defendants declared as Non-performing Assets on 13.09.2021. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 16.10.2021 issued Recall of Loan cum Invocation of Guarantee 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.

¶28

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.283/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the Application proceeded ex parte against the defendants vide Order dated 22.05.2024 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 original loan documents at Exhs.AW-1 to AW-10 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

The Applicant bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, except

(OA No.283/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

commercial equipment i.e. Backhoe Loader bearing RTO Registration No. MH-50-L-3055 AND MH-50-L-3155.

¶42

10 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.

¶43

11 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(A) Original Application No.283/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.25,33,744.85Ps. (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fourty Four and Eighty Five Paise only) to the Applicant Bank (i.e. Rs.19,51,790.80 Ps. towards Loan (I) & Rs.5,81,954.05 Ps. towards Loan (II)) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23.11.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by executing hypothecation of the commercial equipment i.e. Backhoe Loader bearing RTO Registration No.MH-50-L-3055 & MH-50-L-3155, in favour of the Applicant Bank, as described in Schedule-A of the Original Application.

(OA No.283/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

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

¶52

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶53

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

¶54

Place: Pune Date: 31.07.2024

¶55

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

¶56

(OA No.283/2022)

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

[ANIL]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Mahesh Patil and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S. Mahesh Patil and Company

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 India versus M/s Medhekar Foods And Beverages Industry

Bank of India versus Mrs Sushila Khaire

Idbi Bank versus Surekha

Union Bank of India versus W. R. Metal Engg and Research Center and W. R. Infotech Prop Shri. Rohan Balasaheb Waghmare

Bank of Baroda versus Vijay Zankjar

Uco Bank versus Ranjit Narute