Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hewitech Constructions

DRT25 Aug 2025TA/1194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an ex-parte application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of corporate and personal loans. The Tribunal confirmed the proof of documents, noted the absence of the defense, and directed the recovery of principal dues along with interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.14,74,522.96/- and Rs.6,09,225.34/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from 16.03.2022, recoverable from hypothecated machinery or other assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hewitech Constructions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1194 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 1194 of 2022

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Plot no.7, Sector-125, 3rd floor Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201309

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hewitech Constructions

¶9

Through its Proprietor Sh. Virander Bhati No.053, Gulshan Ikbana Sector-143 Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida-201304 Uttar Pradesh

¶10

Sh. Virander Bhati

¶11

Amnabadpost Office K Ulesra Gautam Budh Nagar Greater Noida, Noida-201301 Uttar Pradesh

¶12

Mr. Udham Singh Flat no.22 Mayur Apartment, Sector-9 Rohini, New Delhi-110085 Defendants

¶13

Present: Ms. Anisha, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 24.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 24.05.2022 before DRT-III Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Kumar Jyoti, authorized

¶17

T.A. No.1194 of 2022

¶18

representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,74,522.96/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Two and Paisa Ninety Six only) towards loan I and Rs.6,09,225.34/- (Rupees Six lacs Nine Thousand two Hundred Twenty five and Paisa Thirty Four only) towards loan II as on 16.03.2022 along with interest ©24% per annum with monthly rests from 16.03.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned loan facility of Rs.35,21,049/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Twenty One Thousand Forty Nine only) on 15.11.2019 for purchase of light commercial equipment/vehicle which was to be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments against hypothecation of a vehicle. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned ECLGS facility of Rs.6,46,900/(Rupees Six Lacs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred only) on 13.10.2020.

¶20

That in order to avail the said car loan facility, the defendants executed Loan cum Guarantee Agreement, D.P. Note, Power of Attorney, Term Loan Agreement, Sole Proprietorship Declaration Form, Deed of Hypothecation in favour of applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the Construction Equipment-Batching and Mixing Plant-Schwing Stetter India Private Limited having Chasis no.802058633800 with the applicant bank.

¶22

T.A. No.1194 of 2022

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the vehicle loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and defendants failed to pay outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The account was declared as NPA on 08.02.2022 and issued loan recall notice dated 16.03.2022 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 28.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Kumar Jyoti, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution, Loan Applications, Loan-cumGuarantee Agreement, D.P. Note, Power of Attorney, Request letter, Sanction letters, Term Loan Agreement, Sole Proprietorship Declaration Form, Deed of Hypothecation, Legal notice dated 16.03.2022, Certified copy of Statement of account Ex.AB 1/A to Ex.AB 1/L (Colly).

¶26

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶27

T.A. No.1194 of 2022

¶28

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶29

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶30

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.14,74,522.96/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Two and Paisa Ninety Six only) and Rs.6,09,225.34/- (Rupees Six lacs Nine Thousand two Hundred Twenty five and Paisa Thirty Four only) towards loan II as on 16.03.2022 along with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 16.03.2022 till the date of realization

¶33

T.A. No.1194 of 2022

¶34

and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated Construction Equipment-Batching and Mixing Plant-Schwing Stetter India Private Limited having Chasis no.802058633800. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶35

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶36

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.10.2025.

¶37

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶38

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶39

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 25.08.2025

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hewitech Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Hewitech Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Jarnail Singh

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Balvir Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Rola Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Guru Amardass Transport

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Santokh Singh

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Smt Mahinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur