Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Manik Chawla and Anr.

DRT13 May 2025TA/1557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues. Despite the defendants' absence, the bank proved its case via documents, and the Tribunal ordered payment of the principal amount plus interest at 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs.5,84,51,716/- with interest at 12% per annum within 30 days, failing which recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicles and other assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Manik Chawla and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1557 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. 1557 of 2022

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Plot no.7, Sectot-125

¶6

3rd Floor, Noida

¶7

Uttar Pradesh-201303 Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Manik Chawla 324 A, 3 & K Pocket Dilshad Garden

¶10

Delhi-110095

¶11

Sh. Muralilal Chawla 324 A, J & K Pocket

¶12

Dilshad Garden

¶13

New Delhi-110095 Defendants

¶14

Present: Shri Shivam Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 16.08.2021

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 16.08.2021 & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Sh.Kumar Jyoti, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.5184,51,716/- (Rupees

¶18

T.A. No.1557 of 2022

¶19

Five Crores Eighty Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen only) towards loan I & II as on 02.07.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum with monthly rest from 03.07.2021 till the date of realization and costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants vide loan applications dated 11.11.2020, the applicant bank sanctioned following Commercial Vehicle / Commercial Equipments loan facilities and executed loan agreements on 28.03.2021:

¶21

S.N.	Loan Account No.	Loan Amount	Date of Agreement	Tenure
1.	CV4367764	37,71,401/-	28.03.2021	40
2.	CV4367798	77,30,401/-	28.03.2021	44
3.	CV4368210	57,45,728/-	28.03.2021	46
4.	CV4367668	61,54,830/-	28.03.2021	38
5.	CV4367745	46,04,039/-	28.03.2021	38
6.	CV4368152	74,92,962/-	28.03.2021	44
7.	CV4368171	26,56,332/-	28.03.2021	45
8.	CV4368190	69,99,964/-	28.03.2021	46

¶22

The above vehicle loan facilities as TL-I were sanctioned for purchasing commercial vehicles against hypothecation. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the above sanctioned loan facilities by the applicant bank. Further, on the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned two loan of Rs.88,76,900/- under Loan Account No.CV4292483 and Rs.11,19,500/- under Loan Account No.CV4296212 on 21.08.2020 and 31.10.2020 as TL-II to be repayable in 48 Equated Monthly Installments under Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) guaranteed by NCGTC against hypothecation of vehicles to be purchased as per Govt. Of India

¶23

T.A. No.1557 of 2022

¶24

guidelines to aid eligible Business Enterprises due to economic distress caused by Covid 19 pandemic.

¶25

That in order to avail the vehicle facilities and ECLGS loans, the defendants submitted loan applications, representation with necessary documents and executed Loancum-Guarantee Agreement, D.P Note, Power of Attorney, Deed of Hypothecation and Term Loan Agreement in favour of the applicant bank on 28.03.2021 and 11.11.2020. The defendant no.2 executed Loan-cum-Guarantee agreement on 28.03.2021 towards loan facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶26

That in order to secure the vehicle loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated the following 22 Commercial vehicles along with body purchased out of loan facilities in favour of the applicant bank on various dates.

¶27

DL1PD4007	DL1VC3740	DLIVC3765	DLIPD4044	DLIPD4028
DL1PD4013	UP16GT2433	UP16GT2436	UP16GT2437	UP16GT2438
UP16GT2439	UP16GT3222	UP16GT2615	UP16GT2614	UP16GT5568
UP16GT2950	UP16GT8858	UP16GT8776	UP16GT8788	UP16GT8775
UP16GT8790	UP16GT5979

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the vehicle loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite several requests and defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues and monthly installments in time to the applicant bank. The applicant bank recall the loan facility through notice dated 02.07.2021 to the defendants for adjustment of accounts along with interest but defendants have failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

5d'

¶30

T.A. No.1557 of 2022

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service through publication in newspapers, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 10.10.2024, 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.

¶32

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Kumar Jyoti, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Board Resolution, Loan Application Form dated 11.11.2020, Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 28.03.2021, Power of Attorney, Request Letter dated 11.11.2020, Sanction Letters of ECLGS scheme dated 21.08.2020 and ,1.10.2020, Deed of Hypothecation, Term Loan Agreement, Legal Notice, Certified copy of Statement of Accounts as Annexure A-1 to A-12 marked as Page no.1 to 91.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

S'd

¶36

T.A. No.1557 of 2022

¶37

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.

¶38

10.^{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.

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.5,84,51,716/- (Rupees Five Crores Eighty Four Lacs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen only) ':owards loan I and II along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rest from 03.07.2021 till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of following hypothecated Commercial

¶42

Vehicles / equipment:

¶43

DL1PD4007	DL1VC3740	DLIVC3765	DLIPD4044	DLIPD4028
DL1PD4013	UP16GT2433	UP16GT2436	UP16GT2437	UP16GT2438
UP16GT2439	UP16GT3222	UP16GT2615	UP16GT2614	UP16GT5568
UP16GT2950	UP16GT8858	UP16GT8776	UP16GT8788	UP16GT8775
UP16GT8790	UP16GT5979

Sci

• •

T.A. No.1557 of 2022

duly hypothecated along with body purchased out of bank finance. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶48

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

¶49

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 11.07.2025.

¶50

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

¶51

__ 5d- )--i -_ (G0111ND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶52

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.05.2025

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Manik Chawla and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Manik Chawla and Anr.

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

Mr Tapas Mondal versus Punjab National Bank

Kaushik Paul versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of India versus Mahesh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramandeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Roy K Jose

State Bank of India versus Jaspinder Singh