Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar

DRT9 Dec 2025OA/983/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against two defendants. The bank proved availing of a commercial vehicle loan and execution of security documents. The court held the defendants liable for repayment of dues and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs.28,59,981.40 along with interest and costs; direction to pay dues within two months; injunction against transferring properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶3

LUCKNOW

¶4

Date oforderor proceeding	I Order withsignatureofcourt	Officeaction takenwith date
O.A.No.983/2024 09.12.2025	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin06 sheets Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website.
	(Dictated~ V (PravasKuma+Singh) Presiding Officer
	(Mugish)

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Case No. Original Application No.983 of 2024

¶8

Dated: 09.12.2025

¶9

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., having Branch at Noida.

¶10

........Applicant-bank

¶11

Versus

¶12

Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Baran Singh, R/a Rohata Road, Village – Shahpur Jainpur, P.O. Armawali, Distt. Meerut (UP) – 250502

¶13

Bharat Singh S/o Rajveer Singh, R/o Village Gaindpur, Sheakpur, lsmailpur, Bulandshahr ......Defendants (UP) – 203205

¶14

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Mrs. Usha Chawla, Advocate

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Defendants: None.

¶16

JUDGEMENT

¶17

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.28,59,981.40/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Fifty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty One and Paisa Forty Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc. 2. The brief facts of case are that the defendants No.1 is the borrower and defendant No.2 is the guarantor. The defendants approached the Applicant-bank for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan Facility and executed loan application dated 20.10.2023. The Applicant-bank considered the

O.A. No.983 of 2024

request of the defendants and sanctioned Vehicle Loan Facility of Rs.27,28,755/- vide its sanction letter dated 20.10.2023 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2) to this Original Application.

¶22

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank. The defendant No.1 & 2 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement (Exhibit A-3 to Exhibit No.A-5) to this Original Application.

¶23

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶24

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 19.04.2024 by the bank as per RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-7), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Legal Notice dated 12.08.2024 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-8), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶25

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.28,59,981.40/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Fifty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty One and Paisa Forty Only) including interest upto 08.08.2024, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The

.//'

O.A. No.983 of 2024

Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-6) to this Original Application.

¶30

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 20.10.2023 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendants and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on when Legal Notice dated 12.08.2024 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶31

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, but the defendants did not appear before the Tribunal to contest their case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendants.

¶32

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶33

In support of the case Shri Gaurav Mishra, Deputy Legal Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶34

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-8, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the Applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly

O.A. No.983 of 2024

show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶39

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the defendants.

¶40

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 08.08.2024 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @10% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶41

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation ofhypothecation in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as ex-parte against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant No.1 & 2 are joint and several and hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold

O.A. No.983 of 2024

It is, therefore , ordered

¶46

(i) That the Original Application No.983 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate tO the tune of Rs.28/59p981.40/_ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Fifty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty One and Paisa Forty Only) along with the interest @10% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 09.09.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds exparte against the defendants.

¶47

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶48

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable, if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall

¶49

be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶50

(iv) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the Applicant-bank.

¶51

O.A. No.983 of 2024

¶52

¶53

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks -and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 10.02.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶54

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶55

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶56

Dated: 09.12.2025

¶57

n \a

¶58

(Pravas Kumar . Hffr Presiding Officer

¶59

(MK)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar

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

Ramesh Chandra Patwa versus Canara Bank

Axis Bank versus Mohd Shadab

Central Bank of India versus Smt Satyawati Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Varsha Entertainment World

Hdfc Bank versus U P Surgical Agencies

Yes Bank versus Mr Tariq Ali