Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Ravishankar Industries Pvt. Ltd. (DRAT Chennai)
The appeal was filed under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act against the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in Appeal No. 13/2016 arising out of DRC No. 5/2013 in OA No. 84/2011.
The appellant bank had instituted OA No. 84/2011 for recovery of ₹15,14,19,212 against the borrower company and two others. The Original Application was allowed and a Debt Recovery Certificate was issued in DRC No. 5/2013. During recovery proceedings, the Recovery Officer, by order dated 25.06.2016, directed the civil arrest of Certificate Debtor No. 3. The debtors challenged that order before DRT-II, Chennai in Appeal No. 13/2016. The Presiding Officer allowed the appeal, holding that the bank should first recover the dues by sale of secured and unsecured assets before proceeding with civil arrest. The bank challenged that order before the DRAT.
The appellant bank submitted that it had made several attempts to sell the attached properties but could not do so as title documents could not be secured. According to the bank, despite directions from the Recovery Officer to disclose assets on oath by filing an affidavit, the respondents failed to do so. The bank asserted that the second respondent was engaged in business, possessed movable and immovable properties, had the means to pay the dues, but deliberately avoided disclosing assets and clearing the liability. It therefore sought restoration of the Recovery Officer’s order directing civil arrest. The bank relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallic and another, Civil Appeal No. 2248/2025.
