KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs R S ENTERPRISES on 24 August 2026

**J U D G M E N T**

1. 1. This is an application under Section 19(1) of Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 Act') to recover Rs.2,27,35,230.28/- with future interest thereon from the date of presentation of the Transfer Original Application till payment/realization.

2. 2. The Defendant no.1 were granted a Construction Equipment Loan (Loan No.I) for a sum of Rs.37,80,000/- vide Guarantee

Agreement dt.29.11.2009, and again in October, 2011 Defendants approached the Applicant bank and they were granted a Construction Equipment Loan (Loan-II) by the Applicant for a sum of Rs.22,49,000/- and Construction Equipment Loan (Loan-III) by the Applicant for a sum of Rs.1,12,45,000/- vide Guarantee Agreement dt.29.10.2011 and also granted a Construction Equipment Loan (Loan-IV) by the Applicant for a sum of Rs.89,96,000/- vide Guarantee Agreement dt.26.11.2011 as specified in para no.5.3, 5.5 & 5.10 of the Transfer Original Application and on them executing loan and security documents.

3. Defendants created the Hypothecation of Construction Equipment- Excavator - HYUNDAI-HYUNDAI 210 LC 7 EXCAVATOR, Heavy Commercial Vehicles - Goods - Mahindra - MAHINDRA MN 25, in favour of the applicant to secure the loan.

4. Despite the undertaking effected, Defendants had failed to regularise the account and service interest in the account. So the account remained out of order since long time resulting it to be declared as NPA.

5. Despite issuance of letters, personal visits, telephonic conversation and reminders the Defendant has failed to regularise the account. So the Applicant had caused the issuance of lawyer notice to Defendants to pay up the dues with interest.

A handwritten signature or mark, possibly a stylized 'V' or 'W' with a diagonal line through it, located at the bottom center of the page.

6. Since the defendants failed to make the repayment, the applicant was left with no other alternative other than to file the Transfer Original Application which was presented on 09.05.2013. Defendants were duly served with the summons for appearance on 24.01.2014. On 27.06.2014 Vakalatnama and Written Statement was filed by all the Defendants. But since 22.01.2018 no one had represented for the Defendants and on 09.06.2022 Defendants were granted time to file a Written Arguments, but the Defendants had failed to file Written Arguments.

7. The applicant filed an affidavit (exhibit-20) in lieu of examination in chief through Mrs. Bharati A. Narvekar of the bank, had produced documents, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited and were marked as AW-1 to AW-33.

8. As stated earlier apart from filing a written statement, no effective representation is made by the defendants since 22.01.2018. Apart from filing the written statement no attempt is made by the defendants to substantiate their contentions. Mere pleadings in the written statement cannot supplant the substantiation of the said pleading by arguing the matter or by filing argument notes. Even though applicant had filed CAOD and written argument notes nothing is attempted to by defendants who had persistently remained absent since 22.01.2018. So, the contentions of the applicant are being accepted.

9. Accordingly, the Transfer Original Application was filed for the recovery of Rs.13,25,015.59/- under Loan-I with further interest @9.52% p.a., Rs.21,59,339.85/- under Loan-II with further interest @12.46% p.a., Rs.1,07,96,378.40/- under Loan-III with further interest @12.46% p.a. Rs.84,54,496.44/- under Loan-IV with further interest @12.49% p.a. and other expenses for the period from the date of filing of this T.O.A. till payment/realization.

10. A scrutiny of the averments in the Transfer Original Application and an analysis of the evidence adduced by the applicant, which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted, shows that there is no reason to reject the claim made by the applicant bank.

11. In view of the observations made hereinabove, Transfer Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed.

12. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a. T.O.A. stands allowed with cost and the Defendant no.1 to 3 are held liable jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant Bank within two months a sum of Rs.13,25,015.59/- under Loan-I with further interest @9.52% p.a., Rs.21,59,339.85/- under Loan-II with further interest @12.46% p.a., Rs.1,07,96,378.40/- under Loan-III with further interest

@12.46% p.a. Rs.84,54,496.44/- under Loan-IV with further interest @12.49% p.a. and other expenses from the date of filing of this T.O.A. till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of Hypothecated Construction Equipment- Excavator - HYUNDAI-HYUNDAI 210 LC 7 EXCAVATOR, Heavy Commercial Vehicles - Goods - Mahindra - MAHINDRA MN 25 and in case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the movable and immovable properties of the Defendants.

- b. Defendants are directed to declare, on oath, to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Mumbai, both their moveable and immovable assets for the purpose of attachment and sale for realizing the shortfall, if any.

- c. Let a Recovery Certificate be issued with a memo of cost immediately u/s 19(22) of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 together with the details of the properties, if any.

- d. The Defendants are restrained from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

- e. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

f. Give under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this date :24.08.2026.

(Dictated to my Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me and pronounced in open forum on 24.08.2026).

Place:- Mumbai Date:- 24.08.2026

Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai (Sreekala Suresh)

50 - 50