Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hanumant Yuvraj Raskar

DRT25 Nov 2024OA/285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 51,05,212. Since defendants appeared ex-parte, the court granted the claim principal plus future interest at 9% per annum and enforced the hypothecation of commercial equipment for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 51,05,212 plus future interest at 9% p.a.; directions to sell hypothecated equipment; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

Presented on : 13.10.2021 Registered on : 24.03.2022 Decided on : 25.11.2024 Duration : Y M D 03 01 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

¶3

( Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer ) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 285/2022.

¶4

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.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Hanumant Yuvraj Raskar, At Post Nhavi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 132.

¶8

2 Mr. Yuvraj Ramchandra Raskar, At Post Nhavi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 132.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 285/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant	Advocate Pradip Yadav.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶15

Total Claim Amount – Rs.51,05,212/-

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 25^th November, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.51,05,212/- together with future interest at contractual rate which is 10.94 and 9.25% 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

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

¶20

Name of the facility	Amount Rs.	Date of sanction
Comercial Equipment	45,36,858/-	22.01.2020
Loan
WCTL	8,67,600	10.09.2020

¶21

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

(OA No. 285/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of Equipment namely SANY Excavator having Engine and Chassis No. 19SEY21A86271 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 08.08.2021, 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 23.09.2021, 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.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 29.12.2022 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

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

(OA No. 285/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

Bank.

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

¶35

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rate which is 10.94 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.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 285/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.51,05,212/(Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred Twelve only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of

(OA No. 285/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.10.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of Commercial Equipment SANY Excavator having Engine and Chassis No. 19SEY21A86271, more particularly described in the Schedule A of the Original Application.

¶46

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property 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

Place : Pune Date : 25.11.2024

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No. 285/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hanumant Yuvraj Raskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hanumant Yuvraj Raskar

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 Shahaji Ghodake

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shahaji Chavare

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

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Amararam Chaudhari Prop. M/S. the Beauty Centre

Canara Bank versus Suraj Patil

Idbi Bank versus Jameer Mujawar