Allowed

Indian Bank v. Kgn Motors

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/928/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune allowed an original application filed by Indian Bank against M/s. KGN Motors for non-payment of loan dues. The tribunal affirmed the debt, adjusted certain charges, and ordered recovery of the reduced amount with future interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,44,64,499/- plus future interest at 9% per annum from 15.12.2022 and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Indian Bank versus Kgn Motors — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 15.12.2022 Registered on .. 05.06.2023 Decided on .. 06.07.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--06--21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 928/2023.

¶3

Indian Bank,

¶4

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its branch office at SAM Small Pune, Building No.2, Plot No. S-213, Jupiter Housing Society Nagar, Kalyani Nagar Branch, Pune 411 006.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. KGN Motors, Through its proprietor – Mr. Riyaz Babulal Inamdar, Age – Adult, Occ. – Business,

¶8

At Loni, Post Manjari Farm, Taluka Haveli, Near Manali Resort, NH 9, Pune-Solapur Road, Pune 412 307. Also at :

¶9

Bungalow No. 11, Mayfair Eleganza Phase – 2, Kondhawa Khurd, NIMB Road, Pune 411 048.

¶10

… Defendant

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 928/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶12

Appearances :- For Applicant For Defendant

¶13

Advocate Rohini Pawar i/b VNA Legal Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.2,46,30,288/-

¶15

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 06^th July, 2026)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.2,46,30,288/- together with future interest @13.60% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶18

In October 2017, the defendant had approached to the applicant Bank and requested for financial requirements of Open Cash Credit facility of Rs.1,48,00,000/- for working capital requirement of its business. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Open Cash Credit Facility (OCC under CGTMSE coverage) of Rs.1,48,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 27.10.2017.

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed deed of hypothecation dated

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 928/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶21

27.10.2017 of movables lying in the premises situated at Loni, Post Manjari, Pune in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 24.05.2019, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 21.08.2019, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant.

¶23

The defendant has also executed Acknowledgment of Debt cum Security on 07.10.2020 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account. The defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶24

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 15.05.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶25

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mandeep Singh Wariach, Chief Manager and Constituted Attorney of the applicant Bank, and has

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 928/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶27

produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-16 along with list (Exhibit 14), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed other charges of Rs.1,200/- and Penal Interest of Rs.1,64,589/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.2,46,30,288/- is reduced to Rs.2,44,64,499/-.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.60% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

A} Original Application No. 928/2023 is allowed with

¶34

Sanap ( OA No. 928/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶35

costs.

¶36

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.2,44,64,499/- (Rupees Two Crore Forty Four Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 15.12.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶37

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶38

D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶39

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 06.07.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No. 928/2023 ) 5 of 5

Indian Bank v. Kgn Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Kgn Motors

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

Federal Bank versus Vitthal

Idbi Bank versus Rohini

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abhishek

Federal Bank versus Pruthvi Enterprises

Uco Bank versus Rajendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Amol