KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs PANAMA POLY PRODUCTS PVT.LTD on 21 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 28.07.2016 through Sh' Girja Shankar Pandey, Senior Manager (Legal) of the t}t TA NOi 1688/2022

applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant nos. 1 to 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,21,00,000/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @24.00% p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 defendant nos.2 to 6, the applicant bank sanctioned a loan facilities i.e., (I). Cash Credit Facility of Rs.17,00,00,000/-. (II). Letter of Credit (Inland & foreign) Facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. ([I). Buyers Credit (Sub Limit of Letter of Credit Facility) of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. (ry) Var Limit Facility of Rs.50,00,000/- for 180 days. (V). Conditional Working Capital Demand Loan Facility of Rs.2,55,00,000/- - Total Funding of Rs.25,05,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 20.06.2014 along with addendum sanction letter dated 26.06.2014 & 0L.07.2014. The defendant nos.1 to 6 executed all necessary loaning documents on 20.06.2014, 25.06.20L4 and 27 .06.2014. Again, at the request of defendant nos.l to 6, the applicant bank modified/revived existing limits i.e., (I). Cash Credit Facility of Rs.19,40,00,000/-. (II). Working Capital Demand Loan Facility (Sub Limit of Cash Credit Facility) of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (III). Letter of Credit (Inland & foreign) Facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. (IV). Buyers Credit (Sub Limit of Letter of Credit Facility) of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. (V) Var Limit Facility of Rs.50,00,000/- for 180 days. (W). ConditionalWorking Capital Demand Loan Facility of Rs.2,90,00,000/- - Total Funding of Rs.27,80,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 25.09.2014. The defendant nos. 1 to 6 executed 9'\ '

TA NO/1688/2022 3 all necessary loaning documents on 25.09.2014 and 29.09.2014. In terms of agreed terms and conditions, defendants nos. 1 to 6 were required to get all the assets lying mortgaged with applicant bank insured during the tenure of the aforesaid loan facilities. Accordingly, defendants no. 1 obtained insurance policy from defendant no.7 vide policy no. 2719011LU2015/13 which policy was valid w.e.f. 16.04.2015 till 15.04.2016. Vide said policy the factory of the defendant nos. 1 to 6 at Ghaziabad Propefi including Raw Material, Plant and Machinery and furniture fixtures etc. were insured by defendants no.

1. As the assets of the defendant nos. I to 6 were lying mortgaged with applicant bank thus even in said insurance policy the name of the applicant bank was mentioned as Financer with whom the assets insured were lying mortgaged. Again, at the request of defendant nos.1 to 6, the applicant bank sanctioned Adhoc Facility of 1 Time Working Capital Letter of Credit Facility of Rs.2,00,00,0001-, vide sanction letter dated 11.06.2015. It is submitted that on 01.05.2015 the factory of defendant nos. 1 to 6 at Ghaziabad Property caught fire and damage was caused because of the same. Towards loss suffered by the defendant no.1 due to said fire, a claim was lodged by the defendant no.1 with defendant no.7. The applicant bank has vide letter dated 24th June, 2016 requested the defendant no. 7 for informing the applicant bank about the settlement proceedings and to make the payment of the settlement amount directly to the applicant bank. It is submitted that because of the defaults being committed by the defendant nos.1 to 6 in repaying the aforesaid loan facilities provided, it is 9-\

TA NO/1688/2022 4 the applicant bank who is entitled to receive claims amount from the defendant no.7. It is submitted that vide order dated 03.11.2018, the defendant no.7 has already been discharged from the preset matter. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the O.A, the defendant no.3/ Mr. Gian Chand Jain and defendant no.4/ Ms. Vijaya Jain were died and the LR of deceased defendant no.3/ Mr. Gian Chand Jain and defendant no.4/ Ms. V'rjaya Jain was impleaded, vide order dated

24. t2.2024 in the present OA.

3. It is fufther submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NPA dated 31.01.2016. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 27.04.20L6 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.M[A is preferred by the applicant bdnk to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants put appearance through counsel. The defendant no.7 has field written statement but failed to file evidence. The defendant nos.1 to 6 failed to file written statement and the right to file written statement of defendant nos. 1 to 6 was closed vide order datd24.01.20L7. sA\

TA NO/1688/2022 5

5. The applicant bank has filed documents as Aannexure-l to Annexure- 35 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case ofthe applicant bank stands fully esbablished against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the documents Rled by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 6 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.20,21,00,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 12.00o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization. However, the liability of LR of deceased defendant no.3/ Mr. Gian Chand Jain and defendant no.4/ Ms. Vijaya Jain is limited to the extent of propefi/assets inherited by him from deceased defendant no.3/ Mr. Gian Chand Jain and defendant no.4/ Ms. Vijaya Jain. c\

TA NO/I688i2022

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 6.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 23.Lt.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records Date: 21.09.2026

- [ 'r - (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. SI (susHrl KUMAR RASIOGi) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi a er Date :21.09.2026 T