Allowed

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s M.G.A. Mining Company

DRT17 Dec 2025TA/370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery certificate application against defendants who defaulted on construction equipment loan. The bank proved its claim via banker's book evidence and unchallenged affidavits. The defendants are liable to pay the dues plus interest, with personal liability attached to individual guarantors if sale proceeds are insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate directed for a sum of Rs.99,13,436.30 with interest at 10% p.a. and cost of proceedings.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s M.G.A. Mining… — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 17^th day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.370 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.204 of 2020 and thereafter

¶6

transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.370 of 2022)

¶7

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 5^th Floor, Samson No.402 & 403, Pantheon Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s M.G.A. Mining Company Represented by its Partner

¶10

No.1/43H, Main Road

¶11

Thamaraiponndi, Manakudayan Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu – 621 719

¶12

Ganesan, S/o Mayaran No.64, Vallur Theru Thamaripoondi, Sendurai Ariyalur, Pin: 621 179

¶13

Also at

¶14

No.A/7, RG Housing 6^th Cross Street Indira Nagar, Adyar Chennai – 600 020

¶15

Also at No.64-1, 43H, ValluvarTheru Thamaripoondi, Sendurai Ariyalur, Pin: 621 179

¶16

Ajay Doss S/o I. Joseph No.25/10, Syed Yakub Street Chengalpattu Nathan, Chengalpattu Taluk Kancheepuram District – 603 002

¶17

¶18

Also at No.5, Shreyas Apartments North Avenue, Sri Nagar Colony Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015 …Defendants

¶19

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶20

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Ramalingam & Associates Defendants ex-parte on 28.06.2022

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants’seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.99,13,436.30p with further interest at the rate of 10.55% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned hypotheca.

¶23

The subject matter of the case is the Loan facility availed by the defendants from the Applicant Bank for purchase of construction equipment.

¶24

It is the case of the applicant that the 1^st defendant represented by its Partners defendants 2 and 3 approached the applicant bank in the year 2018 for grant of credit facility for purchasing construction equipment vide Loan application dated 29.06.2018 and the applicant considering the said

¶25

¶26

request sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,16,82,953/- to the first defendant. It is stated that the defendants availed the same in three tranches for the purchase of three construction equipment viz., Rs.31,08,953/- on 28.6.2018 for purchase of Tipper – Ashok Leyland Ltd., - CB AL2518H fully built tipper and agreed to repay the asset price of Rs.34,27,000/- in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.81,950/- on or before 5^th of every month; Rs.54,90,000/- on 02.07.2018 for purchase of Excavator KOBELCO Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., CB Excavator Model SK220XD of KOBELCO and agreed to repay the asset price of Rs.61,00,000/- in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,40,200/- on or before 5^th of every month; and Rs.30,84,000/- on 02.07.2018 for purchase of Tipper – Ashok Leyland Ltd., - CB AL2518H fully built tipper and agreed to repay the asset price of Rs.34,27,000/- in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.79,100/- on or before 5^th of every month.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants executed Demand Promissory Note for Rs.1,16,82,953/- and Loan cum Guarantee Agreement on 02.07.2018.

¶28

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants were highly irregular in repayment and failed and neglected to regularize the loan account despite repeated demand and hence the applicant classified the loan account as NPA on 18.09.2019. As the defendants did not come forward

¶29

¶30

to the outstanding dues, the applicant issued recall notice on 10.10.2019. Despite the same the defendants did not come forward to clear the dues, hence present OA is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶31

Summons was taken out to the defendants were served and was represented by Ld. Counsel. As the defendants did not choose to file their reply statement despite granting sufficient time the defendants were set ex-parte on 28.06.2022. The defendants filed IA No.1268/2022 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order and this Tribunal by its order dated 30.1.2022 allowed the same with a condition that the written statement has to be filed within two weeks. However, as the defendant did not choose to file their written statement, they were again set ex-parte on 16.2.2023. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 10 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-10 on 12.02.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 30.10.2025 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶33

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶34

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶35

These issues are considered together.

¶36

¶37

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶38

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-10 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶39

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶40

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendants is a loan facility for purchase of construction equipment and the applicant has

¶41

¶42

claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶43

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶44

(a) TA No.370 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶45

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.99,13,436.30p with further interest @10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendants jointly and severally after deducting all the amounts received / realized by them during the pendency of OA and also by selling the schedule property and other assets of the defendants.

¶46

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶47

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file

¶48

cost memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶49

¶50

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶52

Rules, 1993.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶55

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 17^th day of December, 2025)

¶56

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶57

S. No.	Date		Desc	ription of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.		Board	Resoluti	on	A-1
2.	29.06.2018	Loan	applicatio	n by defendants	A-2
3.	02.07.2018	Dema execu	nd Prom ted by 1^st	issory Note for Rs.1,16,82,953/- defendant	A-3
4.	02.07.2018	Loan betwe	cum Gu en the ap	arantee Agreement entered into plicant and the defendants	A-4
5.	10.10.2019	Legal defen	Notice dants	issued by the applicant to	A-5
6.	10.10.2019	Legal defen	Notice dants	issued by the applicant to	A-6
7.	10.10.2019	Legal defen	Notice dants	issued by the applicant to	A-7
8.		Statem	ent of A	ccounts–CE667158	A-8
9.		Statem	ent of A	ccounts–CE667164	A-9
10.		Statem	ent of A	ccounts–CE669570	A-10

¶58

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶59

¶60

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶61

Vehicle Make	Vehicle Model	Engine No.	Chassis No.	Reg. No.
Ashok Leyland Limited	Construction Equipment – CB AL2518H Fully Built Tipper	JDPZ122206	77JPDD3668	TN61P6460
Kobelco Construction Equipment India Ltd.,	Construction Equipment – CB Excavator Model SK220XD of KOBELCO Construction	J05ETZ49678	YN15B1297	NA
Ashok Leyland Limited	Construction Equipment – CB AL2518H Fully Built Tipper	HDJ3JPCD9500	JCPZ129064	TN61P6431

¶62

Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶63

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s M.G.A. Mining Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s M.G.A. Mining Company

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

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus M/s Mgm Granites

A Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M. Shanmugam

State Bank of India, Sarb versus K. Ramesh Kumar

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus M/s Star Roofing Sheets