Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sadhana Bharat Rai

DRT23 Feb 2024OA/458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of commercial vehicle loans. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable and directed payment of principal and interest, with assets liable for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 49,30,236.32 plus interest within 60 days; recovery from hypothecated and other assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

O. A. No. 458 of 2022

¶2

Registered on : 26.08.2022 Decided on : 23.02.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 458 of 2022

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, A Banking Company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered office at 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 and one of its branch office at Ground Floor, Samsung Building, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098 through Mr. Sandeep Upadhyay.

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. SADHANA BHARAT RAI, R/o. R-14 Mazadok APT Jai Prakash Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400061. Also at Shrishthi Petroleum, Chinchghar Pen, Mahad-Panji Road, Dist-Raigarh - 402107.

¶8

2. BHARAT BHUVAL RAI, R/o. R-14 Mazadok APT Jai Prakash Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400061. Also at Shrishthi Petroleum, Chinchghar Pen, Mahad-Panji Road, Dist-Raigarh - 402107.

¶9

...DEFENDANTS

¶10

_____________________________________________

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate S. Gaikwad.

¶12

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶13

¶14

O. A. No. 458 of 2022

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The present OA has been filed by the Applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,30,236.32 (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Six and paisa Thirty Two only) along with the further interest at the rate of 11.17% p.a. from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization.

¶17

Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that Defendant No.1 is a borrower along with the Defendant No.1 is a co-borrower had approached the Applicant by their applications for commercial Vehicle Loan and the same were executed on 21.09.2016 for purchasing one commercial equipment and one commercial vehicle, details of which are given herein under:-

¶18

S. No. Agreement No. Amount Vehicle
Financed Description
1. CV3173980 Rs.23,72,000/- Construction
–
Equipment
Tata LPS 4018
Bulker.
2. CV3174050 Rs.23,72,000/- Heavy
Commercial
Vehicle TATA
LPS – 4018 Cab

¶19

It is stated that the Defendants with an intention to secure the due repayment of the said loans with the interest or other charges they

¶20

¶21

O. A. No. 458 of 2022

¶22

agreed and undertook to hypothecate the aforesaid commercial vehicle and equipment in favour of the Applicant bank and as such the Applicant bank have firs and exclusive charge over the said hypothecated commercial vehicle & equipment.

¶23

It is also stated that in order to secure the aforesaid said Vehicle Loan facility the Defendants executed the following documents in favour of the Applicant Bank:-

¶24

a. Loan Cum Guarantee for Loan Account Number CV3173980 dt.20.09.2016.

¶25

b. Loan Cum Guarantee for Loan Account Number CV3174050 dt.21.09.2016.

¶26

c. Promissory note dt.21.09.2016 for Account No. CV3174050 & CV3173980.

¶27

It is also stated that the Defendants were to be repaid with interest the loan which is disbursed in 48 equated monthly instalment of Rs.61,870/-.

¶28

However, after availing the said Vehicle Loan Facility, the Defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Sanction of aforesaid Credit Facility and neglected to make the payment to the Applicant bank. Therefore, the Applicant issued the recall Notice dt.13.06.2017 called upon the Defendants to make the payment of the outstanding dues but the Defendants failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶29

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendants nor filed the WS thus, they were proceeded ex-parte on 06.02.2024.

¶30

¶31

O. A. No. 458 of 2022

¶32

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed on 24.01.2024 through the Mr. Surendra Mishra.

¶33

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶34

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of Defendant No.1 & 2 are joint and several.

¶35

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the Defendant No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally.

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

(i) I allow the present OA and direct the Defendant No. 1 & 2 to pay to the Applicant Bank, jointly and severally, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs. 49,30,236.32 (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Six and paisa Thirty Two only) along with the further interest at the rate of 11.17% p.a. from the date of filing of the present OA till its realization.

¶38

¶39

O. A. No. 458 of 2022

¶40

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Hypothecated assets and other personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.

¶41

(iii) Defendants is hereby directed not to deal with his properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶42

(iv) Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶43

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶44

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

¶45

File be consigned to record.

¶46

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 23.02.2024 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai

¶47

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sadhana Bharat Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sadhana Bharat Rai

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 Baroda versus Her Complete Women

Nandakishore Soma Dhavade versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Sabhalok Builder Pvt. Ltd. versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Food Box the Official Home Food

Sushila Jaya Pujary versus L and T Finance Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mr Shailesh Ambalal Patel