Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot

DRT22 Sept 2025TA/1534/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Reconstruction Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 for recovery of a sanctioned personal loan amidst default by the borrowers and surety. The tribunal adjudged the case on evidence admitted unchallenged and ordered joint and several payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 2,23,87,83,19.97 along with interest @13.75% and costs within 30 days.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Dethi

¶2

TA NO/153412022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS MR. PRADIPKUMAR NANDLAT DHOOT & ORS

¶3

Reserved on : 19.0g.2O25 Pronounced on z 22.09.2025

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

¶5

-Applicant bank

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. PradipKumar Nandlal Dhoot

¶8

Mr. VenugopalNandlal Dhoot

¶9

Defendants

¶10

Present: Mr..Akshat Nayyar, Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 10.09.2024

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 07.03.20t9 through Shri. Dipanshu Singh, Manager Legal of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2L,3g,7g,3|g97 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @24o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a Personal Loan Facility of Rs.1700.00 lacs for a maximum tenor of 36 months vide sanction letter dated 04.08.2016. The defendant no.1 procured guarantee from defendant no.2 for the pujpose of guaranteeing

TNt534/2022

the due repayment of the loan. The defendant no.2 had executed guarantee deed for securing the loan. It is submitted that view to consider the sanction of the aforesaid facility granted by the applicant bank to the defendant no.1 and also to substantiate the net worth of the defendants, the defendants submitted a ceftificate issued by the Kadam & Co. Chartered Accountants dated 1g.07.2016 based on which the assets and liabilities statement of defendant no.2 being Mr. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot as on 31$ December 2015 was submitted to the applicant bank. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 04.08.2016, 30.08.2016, 23.08.2016 and 19.07.2076.

¶18

It is further 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 reguested 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 29.07.2017. Therefore, the applicant bank served a recall notice dated Og.O2.2Otg to the defendants but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.M.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶19

On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant nos.1 and 2 put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. Thereafter, the defendant nos.1 and 2 faild to put appearalce in the matter, despite d

¶20

¶21

TNt534/2022

¶22

issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendant nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 10.09.2024.

¶23

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Dipanshu Singh, Manager Legal of the applicant bank as^paper No-01 to paper No_116 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶24

After perusing the recotds, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶25

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 & 2 to pay joinfly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a total sum of Rs.22,38,78,319.97 along with cost, expenses and interest @13.75o/o from the date of filing of this OA which has become T.A till the date of realization.

9rI

TNt534/2022

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.l & 2.

¶32

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Offtcer, Debts Recovery Tribunal_Il, Delhi.

¶33

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

¶34

Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 25.LL.2OZS. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

File be consigned to records.

¶36

Date : 22.09.2025

¶37

<"\ ; (susHrl r<ut-nn nxsto'cil PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶38

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft.

¶39

C-\

¶40

Date : 22.09.2025

¶41

(susH r L KU ri'IAR RASrO'ci) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot

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