Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. L v Farms

DRT7 Jul 2025OA/1603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues against five respondents. The court quantified the principal amount after deducting non-recoverable penal interest and awarded recovery at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted for recovery of Rs. 1,32,36,412/- plus future interest at 9% p.a., secured by mortgage on specific land parcels.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus L v Farms — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 29.11.2022 Registered on .. 15.12.2023 Decided on .. 07.07.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 02--07--08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1603/2023.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

¶4

A Banking Company under 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 Akruti Chambers, Near Laxmi Maryan, Pune-Satara Road, Pune 411 037.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 M/s. L.V. Farms, A Proprietary concern having its office at – Gat No.947/2, Station Road, Village - Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412 219.

¶8

Represented through its proprietor – Mrs. Sulochana Laxmandas Doshi.

¶9

2 Shri Milind Laxmandas Doshi,

¶10

Age 51 years, Occ. Business,

¶11

R/at – Gat No. 66, Near Old Gram Panchayat, Main Road, Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412 219.

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶13

3 Shri Mahesh Laxmandas Doshi, Age 54 years, Occ. Business, R/at – Gat No. 66, Near Old Gram Panchayat, Main Road, Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412 219.

¶14

4 Smt. Sulochana Laxmandas Doshi, Age 74 years, Occ. Business, R/at – Gat No. 66, Near Old Gram Panchayat, Main Road, Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412 219.

¶15

5 M/s. L.V. Dairys Patas, A Partnership Firm having its office at – Gat No.947/2, Station Road, Village - Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412 219. … Defendants

¶16

:- Appearances

¶17

For Applicant For Defendants

¶18

Advocate Priti Bhat.

¶19

Ex parte.

¶20

Total Claim Amount – Rs.1,36,06,977=83

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered on 07^th July, 2025)

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,36,06,977=83 together with future interest at contractual rate from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶26

Defendant No.1 is the borrower, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the mortgagors and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the coborrowers to the loan facilities offered to defendant No.1.

¶27

As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Secured Loan facility of Rs.3,13,26,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 07.09.2018.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed loan and necessary security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed deed of mortgage dated 14.10.2021 in respect of –

¶29

(1) Non Agricultural Plot of land admeasuring 21,300 sq. mtrs. i.e. 2H 76R out of Gat No. 947/3 situated at village Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune and

¶30

(2) all that piece and parcel of plot land admeasuring 2H 77R i.e. 23,600 sq. mtrs. out of Gat No. 947/2 situated at village Patas, Taluka Daund, District, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶31

Further, at the request of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Secured Loan facility of Rs.43,42,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 20.06.2020. In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and

¶32

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶33

security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation and deed of mortgage dated 14.10.2021 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶34

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 23.02.2022, 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 11.04.2022, 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.

¶35

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 19.11.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶37

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-9) of Satejpal Kapoor, Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-7 along with list which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.63,888=62 towards Term Loan + Rs.12,771=65 towards ECLGS loan, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the claim amount in respect of Term Loan of Rs.93,09,977=14 is reduced to Rs.92,46,089/- and the claim amount in respect of ECLGS Loan of Rs.40,03,094=70 is reduced to Rs.39,90,323/-. Thus, the total claim amount comes to Rs.1,32,36,412/-.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rate. However, on perusal of the Original Application and Claim Affidavit of the applicant Bank, there is no mention about contractual rate of interest. But on going through the Schedule 1.1 of Sanction Letter, it appears that contractual agreed rate of interest was at the rate of 9.75%. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶44

annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

A} Original Application No. 1603/2023 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶48

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.1,32,36,412/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Twelve only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 29.11.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage in respect of –

¶50

(1) Non Agricultural Plot of land admeasuring 21,300 sq. mtrs. i.e. 2H 76R out of Gat No. 947/3 situated at village Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune and

¶51

(2) all that piece and parcel of plot land admeasuring 2H 77R i.e. 23,600 sq. mtrs. out of Gat No. 947/2 situated at village Patas, Taluka Daund, District Pune,

¶52

more particularly described in the Para No. 5 of the Original Application.

¶53

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

¶54

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶55

property to recover its dues.

¶56

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 07.07.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶60

Note :-

¶61

Correction in the order clause (B) in respect of amount in words is carried out vide order dated 24.07.2025 in speaking to the minutes with the approval of Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune.

¶62

Sanap ( OA No. 1603/2023 ) 7 of 7

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. L v Farms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. L v Farms

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

Federal Bank versus Sujata Patil

Mohan Shashikant Bhosale Prop of Shrimant Foods and Mrs Archana Bhosale versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Mr Shitanshu Mistry

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Milind

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Creative Baron-Prop-Mr Akhtar Ali Khan

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. National Automobiles