Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ms Indigo Shoes and Fashions

DRT20 Mar 2024TA/478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed an application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for a recovery certificate of Rs. 30,99,015.64. Finding the defendants' evidence unaffectible, the court proved the loan claim and awarded the principal with future interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

TA No.478/2023 allowed. Applicant permitted to recover Rs.30,99,015.64 with interest @9% p.a. Recovery Certificate to be drawn for enforcement.

Kotak Mahindra Bank versus Ms Indigo Shoes and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.478 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.598/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., No.185, 2^nd Floor, Mount Road, Anna Salai, Chennai – 06. PAN No:AAACK4409J, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Indigo Shoes and Fashions, Represented by its Partners, Mr.V.Krishnakumar & Mr.Ravi Damodaran, PAN No:AACFI2313J, No.10, Sendhil Nagar, Kundrathur Road, Madhanandapuram, Porur, Chennai – 600 116.

¶9

Mr.V.Krishnakumar, S/o.Venugopal, PAN No.AHTPK7677B, Plot No.48, No.1, 1^st Floor, Srinivasapuram Main Road, Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070.

¶10

Mr.Ravi Damodaran, S/o.Damodaran, PAN No:ALJPR0493G, No.10, Kalaivanar Salai, SBI Colony, Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064. … Defendants.

¶11

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Sai Krishnan Associates. Defendants : Exparte.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.30,99,015.64 due in Unsecured Business Instalment Loan availed by the defendants from the erstwhile Deutsche Bank.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the defendants availed Unsecured Business Instalment Loan of Rs.35,00,000/-.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

The 3^rd defendant filed reply statement putting forward a general denial of averments in the TA.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the D1 and D2 failed to enter appearance they were set exparte on 16.01.2020. Even though the reply statement was filed by 3^rd defendant, subsequently as there

¶20

¶21

was no representation for 3^rd defendant he was set exparte on 02.01.2024.

¶22

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A10.

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶25

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are decided together.

¶27

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. Even though the written statement is filed by 3^rd defendant, no documents supporting the same is adduced or any serious dispute is raised in respect of documents relied by the applicant and hence the evidence is proved. There is no dispute as to the liability and defaults raised in the reply statement and no contra evidence is available. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9% p.a. (simple).

¶28

¶29

In view of the above

¶30

i) TA No.478/2023 stands allowed.

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.30,99,015.64 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousands Fifteen and Paise Sixty Four only)with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶32

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶33

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶35

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶38

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ms Indigo Shoes and Fashions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ms Indigo Shoes and Fashions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.