Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

DRT24 Jun 2024OA/550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT Punjab granted a recovery certificate to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against three defendants for a default on a commercial equipment loan of Rs. 21.45 Lakhs, allowing the bank to sell hypothecated equipment and recover dues with 9% future interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate granted; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,45,611/- with future interest @ 9% p.a.; Applicant entitled to sell hypothecated equipment.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vitthal Ingole — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 02.09.2022 Registered on: 14.04.2023 Decided on: 24.06.2024 Duration: Y M D 01 08 22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.550/2023.

¶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 KBC, C27, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 and Branch Office amongst others at 4^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, PuneAhmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune-6 through its Authorized Representative Mr. Deepak Wahale.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Vitthal Bhagwat Ingole 2. Mrs.Vimal Bhagwat Ingole 3. Mr. Bhagwat Yashwant Ingole All R/at Post Gavthan, Gadegaon, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur-413304. … Defendant

¶8

APPEARANCES

¶9

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

(OA No.550/2023)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.21,45,611.07Ps.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered on 24^th June, 2024)

¶16

The applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery certificate of Rs.21,45,611.07Ps . together with future interest thereon @16.67% per annum from 23.07.2022 till the date of filing of the Original Application and thereafter as such rate till repayment/realization of entire dues/debts from the defendants.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached and requested the Applicant Bank on 09.10.2021 for Rs.21,63,367/- to purchase Commercial Equipment namely KOBELCO CB_ KOBELLCO_SK_210lC. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Commercial Equipment Loan for a sum of Rs.21,63,367/-.

¶19

In order to secure the said Commercial Equipment Loan, the defendants have executed necessary loan transactions and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank for securing the Commercial Equipment Loan facility of Rs.21,63,367/-. Further, defendants have hypothecated the Commercial Equipment namely KOBELCO

(OA No.550/2023)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

CB_KOBELLCO_SK_210lC, bearing Chassis No. YQ12B4003, Engine No. J05ETA47331, vide loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 25.10.2021, in favour of the Applicant Bank. 3. It is contended that after availing and utilizing Commercial Equipment Loan, defendants failed to repay the loan amounts as per terms of sanction. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 23.07.2022 issued Loan Recall Notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts of Commercial Equipment Loan. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed & neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶24

Hence, this application is filed.

¶25

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against the defendants vide Order dated 22.04.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶26

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

¶27

The applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs.AW-1 to AW-6 which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.550/2023)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

10 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(A) Original Application No.550/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶37

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank towards Commercial Equipment Loan Rs.21,45,611/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fourty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eleven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.02.09.2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.550/2023)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by executing hypothecation of the Commercial Equipment namely KOBELCO-CB_ KOBELLCO_ SK_210lC, bearing Chassis No. YQ12B4003, Engine No.J05ETA47331, in favour of the Applicant Bank, as described in Para No.5.3 of the Original Application.

¶42

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

¶43

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 24.06.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶46

(OA No.550/2023)

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

[ANIL]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Aparna Dhame

State Bank of India versus Sambhaji

Uco Bank versus Vijaykumar Dhawan

State Bank of India versus Mallikarjuna Khed

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Khutale Construction Prop Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Hindurao Liman