Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahadev Dattu Raskar

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte proceeding, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover outstanding dues of Rs.43.69 lakhs from three borrowers who defaulted on construction equipment loans. The TBG granted future interest at 9% p.a. and directed recovery through the sale of hypothecated excavators.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of Rs.43,69,194/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from filing date; directed sale of hypothecated equipment and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mahadev Dattu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 18.08.2021 Registered on: 29.08.2022 Decided on: 23.03.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 08 05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.707/2022.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd .,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (10 of 1949) having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C27, G-Block, Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 and Branch Office at 4^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune - Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune - 411 006. Versus

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

1 . Mr. Mahadev Dattu Raskar

¶7

2 . Mr. Dattatray Krushna Raskar

¶8

3. Mr. Sunil Namdev Rashkar All R/at Post Nhavi, Tal. Indapur District – Pune-413 132.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Mr. Pradip Yadav - Advocate. For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.43,69,193.57Ps.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 23^rd March, 2026)

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.43,69,193.57Ps . [ i.e. Rs. 9,96,590.61Ps. towards Construction Equipment (Loan-1 A/c No.CE-598288; Rs.24,96,802.85Ps towards Construction Equipment (Loan-II A/c No.CE-800411 and Rs.8,75,800.11Ps towards WCTL Loan A/c No.CE-898320] as on 03.07.2021 together with future interest and other charges thereon at the contractual rates upon the footing of compound interest until payment/ realization as specifically brought out in the particulars of the claim application, from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under: -

¶20

Defendant No.1 is borrower and Defendant No.2 and 3 are Co-borrowers. In October 2017, the defendants approached the applicant bank for loan. The applicant bank sanctioned and granted following loan facilities to the defendants.

¶21

Sr.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
No.
1.	Construction Equipment Loan–I (A/c No. CE-598288)	Rs.41,00,000/-
2.	Construction Equipment Loan–I (A/c No. CE-800411)	Rs.27,16,787/-
	Total Exposure	Rs.68,16,787/-

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ANIL]

In order to secure the above said Loan Facilities, the Defendants have executed necessary loan transactions and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank, as set out in Para No.5 of the Original Application. It is referred to as Loan-I.

¶26

The Applicant Bank states that the hypothecated asset i.e. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT – Excavator – Hyundai Construction equipment CB-Hyundai 210 LC7 Excavator bearing Chassis and Engine No. N33D00687 in favour of the applicant bank by executing loan agreement dated 03.12.2017 AND

¶27

Excavator – Telecon Ltd CB-TATA HITACHI 210 EXCACATOR bearing Chassis and Engine No. S21040395 in favour of the applicant bank by executing Loan Agreement dated 25.09.2019, more particularly described in Schedule-A are charged respectively by the defendants for securing the repayments of the amounts due and payable under the said credit facilities.

¶28

At the request of Defendant No.1 the applicant bank had lent and advanced financial facilities under the said Special Scheme of ECLGS on 03.09.2020 (WCTL (CE-898320) for an

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ANIL]

amount of Rs.8,63,600/-, on certain terms and conditions. It is referred to as Loan-II.

¶33

Defendants have executed certain security documents for the purpose of securing said loan facility in favour of the applicant bank as set out in Para No.8 of the Original Application. The defendants have extended a second charge in favour of the applicant bank over all its present and future current assets and movable fixed including movable fixed assets, both present and future for securing the due repayment of financial facilities granted under Loan (II) with existing charge created for Loan (I) by defendant No.1.

¶34

It is contended that after availing and utilizing the financial facilities towards Loan (I) as well as financial facilities granted under Loan (II), the defendants have failed and/or neglected to make payments as per terms of Loan Agreement and hence, the accounts of the Defendants declared as Non-performing Assets on 18.01.2021. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 03.07.2021 issued Recall of Loan cum Invocation of Guarantee Notice through Advocate Pradip Yadav to the Defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts of the said loan facilities. Despite

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ANIL]

service of Notice, Defendants failed & neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶39

Hence, this application is filed.

¶40

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the Application proceeded ex parte against the defendants vide Order dated 27.06.2025 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶41

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Deepak Wavhale, Authorized Representative which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶42

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs.AW-1 to AW-14 which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

Since the Defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ANIL]

The applicant bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶49

10 Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶50

11 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Original Application No.707/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶53

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.43,69,194/- (Rupees Fourty Three Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Four only) to the Applicant Bank (i.e.Rs.9,96,590.61 towards Construction Equipment Loan–I (No.CE-598288) and Rs.24,96,802.85Ps towards Construction Equipment Loan–I (No. CE-800411) and Rs.8,75,800.11Ps towards Loan A/c No. CE-898320) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.18.08.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.707/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ANIL]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by executing hypothecation of the construction equipment i.e. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT – Excavator – Hyundai Construction equipment CBHyundai 210 LC7 Excavator bearing Chassis and Engine No. N33D00687 & Excavator – Telecon Ltd CB-TATA HITACHI 210 EXCACATOR bearing Chassis and Engine No. S21040395, more particularly described in Schedule-A of the Original Application.

¶58

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the abovementioned hypothecated Construction Equipments to recover its dues.

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Place: Pune Date: 23.03.2026

¶62

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶63

(OA No.707/2022)

¶64

Page 7 of 7

¶65

[ANIL]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahadev Dattu Raskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Mahadev Dattu Raskar

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

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs Prabha

Icici Bank Limited versus Amol

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S. Radha Traders, Prop. Mr. Vipul Vijaykumar Agarwal

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Rising India System Venture Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prakash Salvi

Canara Bank versus Nanda