Dismissed

A Anand Prasad v. Kotak Mahindra Bank

DRT8 Oct 2025MA/40/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, who is a Director and the son of a legal heir involved in recovery proceedings, sought permission to remove cinematographic equipment from premises seized by the Recovery Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the application as the applicant failed to establish ownership of the movables or provide necessary documentation.

What did the court decide?

Application for permission to remove movables from seized premises dismissed; no order as to cost.

A Anand Prasad versus Kotak Mahindra Bank — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶2

08.10.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.40 of 2025 in T.A. No.1701 of 2023

¶8

Anandcine Services Pvt. Ltd. No. 3, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600017. Rep. by Mr. A.Anand Prasad.

¶9

…Applicant / Third Party

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

¶12

Asset Reconstruction Division,

¶13

1^st Floor, Ceebros Centre,

¶14

No. 39, Montieth Road,

¶15

Egmore, Chennai – 600008,

¶16

Rep. by its Vice President,

¶17

Mr. G. Ramachandran Srikanth.

¶18

M/s. Ravishankar Industries Limited, (In Liquidation) O/o. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, Corporate Bhavan, 2^nd Street, No. 29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶19

A. Ravishankar Prasad (Deceased)

¶20

Mr. A. Manohar Prasad, (Office of Official Assignee attached High Court of Judicature Madras) High Court of Madras, Madras High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104.

¶21

Mrs. Sai Sivajothi, W/o. Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, New Door No. 3, Old No. 2, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶22

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶23

¶24

08.10.2025

¶25

Ms. Lakshmi, D/o. Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, New Door No. 3, Old No. 2, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶26

Ms. Anjali, D/o. Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, New Door No. 3, Old No. 2, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶27

Mrs. A. Indirani, @ Indira Anand W/o. Late Anandha Rao, New Door No. 3, Old No. 2, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶28

The Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal – III Shastri Bhavan, Subha Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600008.

¶29

Mr. C. Ramaiah, Advocate Sree Ganesh Apartments, II Floor, No. 51/31, 8^th Street, Sowrashtra Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600094. …Respondents

¶30

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶31

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. C.S. Raghavi

¶32

Counsel for 1^st Respondent bank : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

¶33

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶34

¶35

08.10.2025

¶36

:- ORDER ON MA No.40 /2025 -:

¶37

The present MA is filed by Third Party seeking permission to remove the movables belonging to the applicant lying at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

¶38

It is the case of the applicant that he is a Director of the Applicant Company, having its registered Office at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017. The possession of property No.3, Sarangapani Street, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017 was taken on 17.01.2025 based on the warrant dated 07.05.2024 issued by 9^th respondent without any notice to the applicant or to the Owners which has caused significant problem. Several cinematographic expensive and sophisticated equipment are lying in the premises which are used for technical purposes, which are not attached by order of Court nor hypothecated to 1^st Respondent bank. In such circumstances, it is imperative that the premises be opened for removal of equipment to ensure their safe upkeep.

¶39

It is the further case of the applicant that the equipment is specialized foreign made machinery, which requires specific storage and operational conditions including maintaining low temperature for proper function. The advocate has taken possession beyond the scope of warrant, without any inventory of the goods the advocate commissioner has handed over the keys to the 9^th Respondent and the respondent bank

¶40

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶41

08.10.2025

¶42

¶43

claims to have seized the property through some Agency which are in gross violation of law.

¶44

It is further contended that the Ld. Recovery Officer permitted for the removal of movables which are not attached or hypothecated that are lying in the sealed premises. However, the 1^st Respondent bank refused to co-operate and insisted on an "Acceptance Affidavit" to be filed before Ld. Recovery Officer, which is unheard of and due to extreme duress, this application has been filed.

¶45

Further an application seeking removal of movables has been filed before the 9^th Respondent in MA.SR. No. 708 of 2025 and the 1^st Respondent bank is yet to file counter and the matter is pending consideration. Hence it is prayed that the applicant be permitted to remove the movables belonging to the applicant and the present applicant is filed without prejudice to the right and contentions that may be raised by in the pending proceedings in TRC No.276 of 2022, and/or claim for Damages/loss and wrongful seizure.

¶46

The 1^st respondent bank in their counter denied all the allegations/averments made in MA 40/2025 contending that the applicant is the Third Party to the recovery proceedings in TRC No. 276 of 2022 and the present application seeking permission to remove the movables from the property situated at No. 3 Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 008, is not maintainable in law and on facts.

¶47

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶48

08.10.2025

¶49

¶50

It is further submitted that the applicant has no Locus to file this Application before this Tribunal and there are no documents produced by the applicant before the Ld. Recovery Officer seeking for direction for the removal of the goods from the premises and they are not entitled to remove the same from the premises. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, they have to approach the Ld. Recovery Officer in this regard and seek suitable direction for the removal of the goods from the said Premises. Further the petitioner is bound to produce necessary documents before the Ld. Recovery officer to show that the said movables belong to them and the petitioner is entitled to remove the same from the premises.

¶51

The Ld. RO DRT III Chennai issued warrant for taking physical possession of the property situated at No.3 Sarangapani Street T. Nagar Chennai – 600017 on 23.02.2023. The Advocate Commissioner after serving notice to the parties and affixed the notice in conspicuous place of the property on 17.05.2024. When the advocate commissioner visited the property on 17.03.2024 it was seen that the property was already locked and sealed by GST authorities on 02.03.2023. The advocate commissioner recording the same put-up lock and seal over and above the GST seal submitted his report and returned the Warrant on 29.03.2023.

¶52

The Ld. RO based on the report of Advocate Commissioner report asserted that schedule mentioned property is now in the physical

¶53

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶54

08.10.2025

¶55

¶56

possession of this Hon'ble Tribunal, except the movable assets which are all locked inside the buildings are sealed by the GST authorities as notified in the said building and communicated to the sales tax authority on 08.05.2023 to make necessary arrangements to remove the movables for taking further steps of sale by the Certificate Creditor Bank. 10. Further the bank also clarified their right to GST authority vide its letter dated 27.06.2023. When the bank officials along with panel valuer visited the property on 07.09.2023, it was found that locks put up by the Advocate Commissioner were tampered with, the seals locks were removed the respondent bank vide affidavit dated 07.09.2023 informed the Ld. RO about tampering of the lock and seal of the advocate commissioner, which the bank strongly presumed that the seals locks were tampered with only by the present Occupants as on 17.01.2025. 11. The Ld. RO issued another communication to the GST Authorities to handover the possession after taking out the movable from the premises and hand over vacant possession to the Advocate Commissioner on 20.09.2023. Then the GST Authorities vide their Communication dated 24.11.2023 to the Ld. RO informed the pendency of WP No 7312 of 2023, WP No.4645, to 4677 and 4684 of 2023 and sought time to get legal opinion for release of attachment made and will inform the Office of the LR RO in due course.

¶57

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶58

08.10.2025

¶59

¶60

The respondent Bank filed WP No.3516 of 2024 seeking for direction to GST Authorities to handover the vacant possession to the Advocate Commissioner. The Hon'ble First Bench after hearing the GST authorities about their recoveries submitted that GST has no stake in the property have removed their Locks and there is no impediment for the RO DRT to take possession. The Hon'ble First Bench directed the Ld. RO DRT to proceed ahead with the execution of the RC and make all possible steps to take physical possession.

¶61

The legal heirs of Late Ravishankar Prasad filed application before the Hon'ble High Court for recalling the said order which was denied by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.04.2024 and they have not preferred appeal against the said dated order 13.04.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court.

¶62

As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Ld. RO DRT III Chennai issued another warrant dated 07.05.2024 to the Advocate Commissioner to take possession. Accordingly, Advocate Commissioner vide communication dated 17.05.2024 to the certificate debtors including the third-party applicant herein sought for handing over possession on or before 06.06.2024 failing which he will take possession as per the order of the Tribunal with the powers conferred on him to seek police assistance and break open the premises.

¶63

However, the advocate commissioner could not execute the warrant as police authorities did not cooperate in spite of Communication dated

¶64

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶65

¶66

08.10.2025

¶67

17.05.2024, 08.07.2024 and on 03.10.2024 to the Police authorities for necessary Assistance. As the Warrant was subjected to High Court order, the Ld. Recovery Officer extended the Warrant from time to time up to 11.02.2025. The advocate commissioner with the assistance of police Authorities took the physical possession of the Property on 17.01.2025 submitted his report. The spot report of advocate commissioner clearly states that the people who claim themselves as Respondent agents could not produce any specific stay order. Hence, he proceeded to complete the mandate of the warrant

¶68

The Director, Mr. Anand Prasad is the son of the third Respondent Mr. A. Manohar Prasad [deceased - one of the Certificate Debtor in the DRC No.5 of 2013] claiming to be an incumbent in the said premises filed M.A.No.44 & 45/2018 before the Recovery Officer DRT II Chennai, to remove the Attachment and stay the execution of the Warrant, which got dismissed vide Order dated 23.02.2018. Applicant is son of A. Manohar Prasad, guarantor and Legal Heirs representing the Estate of Late Ravishankar Prasad are liable for huge dues payable to 1^st respondent bank which include two TRCs to the extent of more than Rs.600 Crores. 17. It is further submitted that after issuance of the DRC in the year 2013 and till date the Bank has not recovered one rupee in the above TRC and the Legal Heirs and Son of Manohar prasad Mr. Anand Prasad filed so many unwarranted / unsustainable applications in various courts to scuttle

¶69

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶70

¶71

08.10.2025

¶72

the Recovery Proceedings. In the Contempt application they made wrong submissions that the Bank has given undertaking before this Tribunal that they shall not proceed as per the Warrant.

¶73

Heard the counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶74

5.1 It is apparent from the records that the present MA No.40/2025 is filed by Anandcine Services Pvt Ltd. represented by Mr. A. Anand Prasad. It is seen from the cause title that the 1^st respondent is a financial institution, the 2^nd respondent is the company under liquidation, the 3^rd respondent is Mr. A. Ravishankar Prasad who is deceased, the 4^th respondent is Mr. A. Manohar Prasad who is the office of official Assignee attached to High Court of Judicature Madras, the 5^th respondent is the wife of Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, the 6^th respondent is the daughter of Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, the 7^th respondent is the daughter of Late A. Ravishankar Prasad, the 8^th respondent is the wife of Late Anandha Rao, the 9^th respondent is the Recovery Officer of DRT-III Chennai and the 10^th respondent is Mr. C. Ramaiah, Advocate.

¶75

5.2 The applicant is the third party to the RC proceedings in TRC No.276/2022 has filed the present MA seeking permission to remove the movables belonging to the applicant which is lying at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. It is claimed that there was several cinematographic expensive and sophisticated equipment are lying in the

¶76

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶77

¶78

08.10.2025

¶79

premises and the applicant has also filed application seeking removal of movables even before the Ld. Recovery Officer in MA.SR. No. 708 of 2025 which is pending adjudication before Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶80

5.3 It is also matter of record that the applicant has not produced any document or details of the several cinematographic expensive and sophisticated equipment lying at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai either before the Ld. RO in MA.SR. No. 708 of 2025 orin the instant application.

¶81

5.4 It is seen from the records that the Late A. Ravishankar Prasad was

¶82

the director of the company, is deceased, represented by its Legal heirs Ms. Anjali, the 7^th respondent has filed MA No.123/2024 seeking for rectification/modification of the Debt Recovery Certificate (DRC) in TDRC No.276 of 2022 and MA No.38/2025 for reference to the Hon’ble Madras High Court of the contempt committed by the 1^st respondent. The applicant here in is the son of A. Manohar Prasad has now filed the present MA, seeking for removal of movables.

¶83

5.5 The Tribunal during the proceedings of the case posed a question to

¶84

the applicant as how the applicant had kept their equipment on the mortgaged property being premises at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. The counsel for the applicant vide proceedings dated 29.05.2025 had submitted that the equipment were kept on license agreement and

¶85

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶86

08.10.2025

¶87

¶88

the Advocate Commissioner under the recovery proceedings have taken the possession of the mortgaged property along with the equipment which was available on the secured asset.

¶89

5.6 On perusal of the records, it was not clear as to how the applicant claims to have kept the costly cinematic equipment on the premises which are not supported by any license agreement or any documents to establish his claim on the movable article. Further it is also matter of record that the GST authorities have taken possession and locked the premises along with all the moveable available towards their dues by the Anandcine Services Pvt ltd. Hence the Tribunal sought a report from the Ld. Recovery Officer to ascertain the nature of the equipment lying in the secured asset at the time of Advocate Commissioner taking the physical possession and also the details of the equipment and owner of the equipment as per the report of the advocate commissioner.

¶90

5.7 The Ld. Recovery Officer has submitted his reports on 26.05.2025 submitting that a Sale Proclamation under Rule 53 of the 2^nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were published on 21.02.2025 for the property located at Old No.2(New No.3), Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 17, Sub Registration District of T.Nagar. Mrs. Sai Sivajothi and Ms. Anjali has filed their objections to recall the sale notice.

¶91

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶92

¶93

08.10.2025

¶94

5.8 Further Mr. A. Anand Prasad as Director of M/s. Anandcine Services Pvt. Ltd. had filed an affidavit on 21.01.2025 seeking permission to remove the movables, lying at, T. Nagar Property, Old No.2 (New No.3), Sarangapani Street, Chennai – 17. It is submitted that the Recovery Officer has issued warrant dated 23.02.2023 to the Advocate Commissioner to take the physical possession of the T. Nagar property and Advocate Commissioner has taken all necessary steps and issued notice dated 02.03.2023 to all the Certified Debtors.

¶95

5.9 The Advocate Commissioner has taken possession on 17.03.2023 based on the warrant dated 23.02.2023 and locked the premises without taking inventory of the moveable as the property was already locked and sealed by the GST authorities on 02.03.2023 for the dues payable by M/s. Anand Cine Services Pvt. Ltd. is the third party/applicant herein who has filed the present MA.

¶96

5.10 As the property was already locked and sealed by the GST Authorities on 02.03.2023, the ingress and egress were prevented and Advocate Commissioner had put up lock and seal over the GST seal, recording the same, submitted his report to Ld. Recovery Officer. When the bank officials along with valuer inspected the property, it was noticed that the seal put up by the Advocate Commissioner was removed and the GST authorities lock and seal were kept intact which was brought to the notice of the Recovery Officer and considering the same, the Recovery

¶97

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶98

¶99

08.10.2025

¶100

Officer has communicated to the GST Authorities to handover the Physical Possession to the Advocate Commissioner.

¶101

5.11 The Recovery Officer also asserted that the schedule property is in the physical possession of the Tribunal except the movable assets which are locked and sealed by the GST Authorities and the same was communicated to sales tax authority on 08.05.2023 for necessary arrangements. The GST Authorities clarified about the right of the bank vide its letter dated 27.06.2023 as there was no response from the GST authorities. The bank officials yet again visited the property along with the valuer and it was found that the locks put up by Advocate Commissioner were tampered and the seals, locks were removed, keeping the GST locks intact without disturbing the seal.

¶102

5.12 The Recovery Officer yet again communicated to the GST Authorities to handover the possession after taking out the movables to the Advocate Commissioner on 20.09.2023 and issued fresh warrant on 29.09.2023 to the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property situated at No.3, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar Chennai – 600 017. Then, the GST Authorities vide communication dated 24.11.2023 intimating about the pendency of the W.P.No.7312 of 2023, W.P.No.4645, to 4677 and 4684 of 2023, and sought time for legal opinion for release of attachment made and would inform Recovery Officer in due course.

¶103

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶104

08.10.2025

¶105

¶106

5.13 The respondent bank has filed a W.P.No.3516 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras seeking for a direction to handover the vacant possession to the Advocate Commissioner and the Hon’ble First Bench after hearing the GST Authorities about their recovery of their dues they did not have any stake in the property and they also removed their locks and seal and there was no impediment for the Recovery Officer to take possession. Hence the Hon’ble First Bench specified that Ld. Recovery Officer shall proceed ahead of the RC and to make all possible steps to take the physical possession.

¶107

5.14 The legal heirs of Late Ravishankar Prasad has filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court was denied on 13.04.2024 to which the legal heirs had not preferred an appeal against the order dated 13.04.2024. The Ld. Recovery Officer has issued another warrant dated 07.05.2024 to Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner vide communication dated 17.05.2024 to the certificate debtors sought to handover the physical possession of the property on or before 06.06.2024.

¶108

5.15 Further, the Advocate Commissioner along with bank officials have affixed the notice on 17.05.2024 and also photographed which is also enclosed in the report. The staffs of the CDs have not handed over the vacant possession the property and the Advocate Commissioner after 15 days, approached the concerned police authority on 08.07.2024 to take

¶109

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶110

08.10.2025

¶111

¶112

the physical possession of the property and also submitted request letter dated 08.07.2024 along with copy of warrant dated 07.05.2024.

¶113

5.16 However, the Advocate Commissioner could not execute the warrant and the warrant was extended from time to time up to 11.02.2025. The Advocate Commissioner along with a team of police officials, Bank officers and videographer went to the premises to execute the warrant and informed all the Certified Debtors about the purpose of the visit and asked for their cooperation to execute the warrant and started to take inventory of the premises room by room. However, during the proceedings, two persons namely Mr. Palanivelu and Mr. Ganesh who introduced themselves along with their staffs prevented the execution of the warrant contending that there is a stay granted against executing the warrant by DRT-III, Chennai.

¶114

5.17 As they failed to produce any order copy of stay or any specific stay order against the warrant, the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Police Authorities took the physical possession of the property on 17.01.2025 and a spot report was also prepared and completed the mandate of the warrant.

¶115

5.18 Further, it is seen from the report of the Recovery Officer that all the inventory items were scattered around in all the room of the building which are mostly scrap items of cine materials. Therefore, the Advocate

¶116

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶117

08.10.2025

¶118

¶119

Commissioner executed the warrant and has taken inventory room by room and a detailed report along with list of articles available in the property is submitted.

¶120

5.19 After taking the inventory, the Advocate Commissioner locked and sealed the rooms along with the materials available and the execution proceedings were photographed and video graphed. The entrance gate, and every room were locked and sealed. It is further clarified by the Advocate Commissioner that the movables kept inside the property were office nature materials, cine materials, some lights, some lens, scrap items, which the Advocate Commissioner has requested the staffs to move the movables and they failed to do so.

¶121

5.20 Further, Mr. Srikanth the bank officer has clarified that W.P.No.3516 of 2024 which is filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras is the consequence of the removal of the locks of the Advocate Commissioner and the applicant is none other than son of Mr. A. Manohar Prasad who is one of the respondents in the TRC Proceedings.

¶122

5.21 On perusal of the report of the Recovery Officer, it is clear that the ownership of cinematic equipment of the applicant is not established. Though, the applicant had filed a MASR.No.708/2025 before the Recovery Officer for removal of the movables is also not supported by any documents. Additionally, when the Tribunal posed a question as how and

¶123

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶124

08.10.2025

¶125

¶126

on what legal authority that the equipment of the applicant was kept in the secured property is also not answered or clarified nor supported by any documents by the applicant here in. However, the applicant had also filed W.P.No.13359/2025 and W.M.P.No.14949/2025 seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the DRT-III, Chennai to hear and dispose of the MA No.40 of 2025.

¶127

5.22 The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has considered the arguments and directed the DRT-III Chennai to dispose the MA No.40 of 2025 on the next date 05.06.2025. The matter was heard in detail. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records and report of Ld. Recovery Officer, it is seen that the Anand Cine Services Pvt. Ltd. is a 3^rd party to T.R.C.No.276/2022 in the recovery proceedings and also an admitted fact that the Anand Cine Services Pvt Ltd, represented by its Director Mr. Anand Prasad is none other than Son of 4^th respondent Mr. A. Manohar Prasad who is liable to repay the huge dues as legal heirs to the respondent bank in two TRC to the extent of Rs.600 crores.

¶128

5.23 It is also a matter on record that the legal heir of Late A. Ravishankar Prasad who is deceased and M/s. Ravishankar Industries Limited is under liquidation, are trying to thwart the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank in recovering the dues of the 2^nd respondent herein. Thus, it is evident that the legal heirs of the deceased Late A. Ravishankar

¶129

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶130

¶131

08.10.2025

¶132

Prasad have been filing applications after applications only to thwart the recovery measures taken by bank.

¶133

5.24 Further, the applicant has not answered to the question raised by the Tribunal about the legal authority to keep the equipment on the mortgaged property which was created as security to the bank. The applicant has also not produced any documents before the Recovery Officer to establish that the movables available on the property belongs to him and that he is rightful owner to receive the same. As the applicant failed to establish the nature of movables, quantity of the movables, and the description of the movables, the Tribunal is not inclined to interfere in the recovery proceedings without any justifiable cause or right of the applicant seeking to remove the moveable’s lying on the property.

¶134

5.25 It is also a matter on record that the Recovery Officer has appointed the Advocate Commissioner to take the physical possession of the property which was restrained for various reasons and finally the Advocate Commissioner has taken the physical possession of the property along with description of the movables available at the time of taking the possession. On the other hand, the applicant has failed to render the description of the equipment which are available on the property to claim the ownership nor any supporting documents is produced to support the claim of the ownership of the movables.

¶135

MA 40/25 in TA No.1701/2023

¶136

¶137

08.10.2025

¶138

5.26 The prayer of the applicant to remove the movables from the mortgaged property without establishing his legal right over the moveable has filed the present MA No.40/2025 is only to be dismissed. Accordingly, MA

¶139

No.40/2025 stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶140

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶141

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 08^th day

¶142

of October, 2025)

A Anand Prasad v. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Anand Prasad v. Kotak Mahindra Bank

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indukanan

G Mahalakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam versus Federal Bank

Elizabeth S versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other

Bank of India versus Prameela