Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gambhir and Others

DRT19 Dec 2025OA/1401/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.50 lakh from defendants jointly and severally. The Tribunal granted recovery of principal plus simple interest at 8% per annum instead of the claimed 24%, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.50,95,883.20 with simple interest at 8% p.a. jointly and severally; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gambhir and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1401/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 19.12.2025

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 and having branches all over India and one of its branch offices situated at SCO No.131-132-133, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus 1. Sh. Gambhir S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, R/o House No. 199, Village and Post Office Bhilpura Pipli Mahra (76), Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶8

Sh. Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh, R/o House No. 200, Village and Post Office Bhilpura Pipli Mahra (76), Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶9

2^nd Address: C/o Jai Maa Vaishno Screening Plant, situated at Balgerh, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135021.

¶10

Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kabaj Ram, R/o House No. 202, Village Nagal Patti Machhrauli, Tehsil Bhilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135102.

¶11

Ms. Baagesh D/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, R/o House No. 20, Village and Post Office Bhilpura Pipli Mahra (76), Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶12

………. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for Applicant Defendants already ex-parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.50,95,883.20 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three & Paise Twenty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh

¶17

¶18

OA/1401/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GAMBHIR AND OTHERS

¶19

Kumar, Manager of applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 43,12,515/- for purchase of TATA SIGNA 3525 vide individual customer relation form dated 26.02.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 48,00,000/- for purchase of TATA SIGNA 5530 vide individual customer relation form dated 11.09.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 6,12,548/- for purchase of Tractor vide individual customer relation form dated 27.03.2024, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 stood as guarantors in Loan accounts of defendant no. 1. 3. The applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 43,12,515/- for purchase of commercial vehicle i.e. TATA SIGNA 3525. Loan cum guarantee agreement dated 30.03.2022, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 45,51,700/- for purchase of commercial vehicle i.e. TATA SIGNA 5530. Loan cum guarantee agreement dated 26.09.2023, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 6,12,548/- for purchase of commercial vehicle i.e. Sonalika Tractor 750. Loan cum guarantee agreement dated 02.04.2024, which is Annexure A14 to this OA. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated following commercial vehicles: (i) TATA SIGNA 3525, bearing Registration No. HR58C9552, Engine No. B6.7B6A250D06222B64191846, Chasis No. MAT777013N3B04302. Tax Invoice of the vehicle dated 21.03.2022 is Annexure 3 to this OA. (ii) TATA SIGNA 5530, bearing Registration No. HR58C0318, Engine No. B6.7B62300D02132H64320868, Chasis No. MAT828045P3H26121. Tax Invoice of the vehicle dated 22.09.2023 is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶21

¶22

OA/1401/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GAMBHIR AND OTHERS

¶23

(iii) SONALIKA TRACTOR 750 bearing Registration No. HR71M0521, Engine No. 4100U44A1393317F32, Chasis No. BZZDP1407736S3. Tax Invoice of the vehicle dated 23.03.2024 is Annexure 13 to this OA. Virtual Registration Certificates of vehicles filed on 15.12.2025 vide diary no. 20712 in compliance to order dated 14.11.2025. Documents executed : D.P. Note, Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2022, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA; D.P. Note, Power of Attorney dated 26.09.2023, which are Annexures A10 and A11 to this OA; D.P. Note, Power of Attorney dated 02.04.2024, which are Annexures A15 and A16 to this OA; Loan recall notice dated 19.08.2025, along with postal receipts which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Statements of accounts, which are Annexures A18 to A20 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.50,95,883.20, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex parte 12.11.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A20 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved

¶26

¶27

OA/1401/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GAMBHIR AND OTHERS

¶28

that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.50,95,883.20 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three & Paise Twenty Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶29

In so far as pendent lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.08.2025 till the realization.

¶30

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets , undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.50,95,883.20 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three & Paise Twenty Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicles of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

¶35

OA/1401/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GAMBHIR AND OTHERS

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.01.2026.

¶37

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶38

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶39

Dated: 19.12.2025.

¶40

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶41

Presiding Officer,

¶42

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gambhir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gambhir and Others

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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurwinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Tarsem Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Netarpal Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Navdeep Singh Sohal

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh