Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Shri Ganeshay Trading Company

DRT27 May 2025TA/833/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the applicant bank. It directed the absent defendants to pay the outstanding principal along with interest and costs within 30 days. An ancillary recovery certificate was issued, and bail was granted to the parties from the Reconciliation Officer.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs.3,18,04,251.72 plus interest and costs within 30 days and issued a recovery certificate for enforcement against hypothecated stock, book debts, and mortgaged property.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Shri Ganeshay Trading… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶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. 833 of 2023

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank

¶6

7th Floor, Ambadeep Building

14, K.G. Marg

New Delhi-110001

Applicant

Versus

M/s Shri Ganeshay Trading Company Through its Partners Shop at Ground and Mezzanine floor

¶12

4124, Naya Bazar Delhi-110006

¶13

Sh. Kishan Kant Sharma s/o Mr. Kishan Swaroop Sharma C-1/107, Yamuna Vihar

¶14

Delhi-110053

¶15

Mrs. Suman w/o Mr. Mukesh Kumar C-53/11A, Gali no.02 Mohanpuri, Maujpur Delhi-110053

¶16

Mrs. Santosh w/o Mr. Vijay Kumar Mittal C-53/11A, Gali no.02 Mohanpuri, Maujpur Delhi-110053

¶17

Mr. Mukesh Mittal Shop at Ground and Mezzanine floor 4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶18

Mr. Vijay Kumar Mittal Shop at Ground and Mezzanine floor 4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶19

Mr. Kishan Swaroop Sharma

¶20

¶21

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶22

Shop at Ground and Mezzanine floor 4124, Naya Bazar Defendants Delhi-110006

¶23

Present: Shri Gaurav Srivastava, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 02.')1.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 02.01.2021 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh. Khushboo Bhatnagar, 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.3,18,04,251.72 (Rupees Three Crores Eighteen Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty One and paisa Seventy Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the Defendant no.1 through its partners /guarantors being defendant no.2 to 4 along with defendant no.5 to 7 as guarantors, the applicant bank sanctioned Secured Overdraft facility of Rs.200 Lacs as working capital on 27.J8.2015 @12.25% interest with monthly rests for trading business of foods grains etc. against hypothecation of stocks, book debts as prime security and collateral security of mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2.

¶27

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶28

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Sanction Letter, Facility cum Hypothecation Agreement, Deed of Guarantees, Take Delivery Letter (TDL) Cum Continuity Letter, Pronote(DPN), Declaration and Affidavit/Undertaking dated 27.08.2015 with the applicant bank.

¶29

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants hypothecated the stocks in trade and book debts stored at property no.4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi in favour of the aoplicant bank.

¶30

Further, in order to secure the credit facility, the defendant no.2 to 4 created equitable mortgage of secured assets being All that part and parcel of One Shop of Ground Floor with Mezzanine Floor area measuring 48.50 sq.yds of Property No.4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi owned by defendant no.2 to 4.

¶31

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.08.2017 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶32

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 26.10.2018 was issued to the

¶33

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶34

defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues. The applicant bank taken the symbolic possession of mortgaged property vide notice dated 01.02.2019 and issued Sale Notice on 07.06.2019 and 08.08.2019 for sale of the secured asset, which failed for want of bids.

¶35

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 8. despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.08.2022, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶36

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Ms. Khushboo Bhatnagar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Partnership Deed alongwith Registration Certificate Ex.AW1/2(Colly), Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/3, Facility cum Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW-1/4, Deed of Guarantee Ex.AW-1/5, Take Delivery letter cum Continuity Letter Ex.AW1/6, Pronote Ex.AW-1/7, Undertaking Ex.AW-1/8, Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds Ex.AW-1/9 and Title Deeds of Secured Asset Ex.AW-1/10, Declaration and Affidavit Ex.AW-1/11 & Ex.AW-1/12, Title deed Register Ex.AW-1/13, Translation Certificates Ex.AW-1/14, Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW1/15, Possession Notice Ex.AW-1/16, Sale Notice Ex.AW-1/17, Sale Notice Ex.AW-1/18, Statement of Accounts and Ccrtificate under Section 2(a), 2A(b) and 2A(c) of the Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891 Ex.AW-1/19 & Ex.AW-1/20.

¶37

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶38

10.^{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 approved.

¶39

11.^{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.

¶40

12.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

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.3,18,04,251.72/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighteen Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty One and Paisa Seventy Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.25% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts and mortgaged property being One Shop of Ground Floor and with Mezzanine Floor area measuring 48.50 sq.yds., Property No.4124, Naya Bazar, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

T.A. No. 833 of 2023

¶45

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 25.07.2025.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.05.2025

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Shri Ganeshay Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Shri Ganeshay Trading Company

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kapil Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Mohit Rishi

Punjab National Bank versus Amarjit Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Baljodh Singh

Baby John versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Vasu