Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Majid Transport Company and Others

DRT20 Mar 2026OA/1005/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed Kotak Mahindra Bank's application for recovery of an outstanding loan. The tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate from 24% to 8% p.a. and ordered the recovery from the debtor and guarantors via sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.45,21,235.72 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing through sale of hypothecated vehicle or attachment of personal assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Majid Transport… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1005/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.03.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a body corporate, incorporated under the Banking Regulations 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

¶8

Versus

¶9

Majid Transport Co. through its proprietor, Shop No.81, Near Dhauj Market, Village Zakhpour (36), Post Office Dhauj, District Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

¶10

Majid S/o Sh. Rasid, proprietor of Majid Transport Co. near Badi Jama Masjid, Village Zakhpour (36), Post Office Dhauj, District Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

¶11

Ms. Karishma Ali C/O Majid, R/O H. No. 30, Street No.2, near Badi Jama Masjid, Village Zakhpour (36), Post Office Dhauj, District Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

¶12

Sh. Rasid Khan S/O Sh. Din Mohd. R/O 47, Rawal College, Near near Badi Jama Masjid, Village Zakhpour (36), District Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

¶13

…….Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for the applicant

¶16

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 23.01.2026

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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.45,21,235.72 (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five and Paise

¶19

¶20

OA NO. 1005/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAJID TRANSPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶21

Seventy Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.52.00 Lacs for the purchase of Commercial Vehicle i.e. TATA SIGNA 5530 vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 14.06.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.52,43,091.00 for purchased Commercial Vehicle i.e. TATA SIGNA 5530 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Loan cum Guarantee Agreement along with schedules dated 05.07.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. 4. Defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 hypothecated Commercial Vehicle TATA SIGNA 5530.S BSVI 4X2, bearing Registration No. HR38AF0171, Engine No. B6.7B62300D02132F64302212, Chassis No. MAT828045P2F15316. Tax Invoice of Vehicle dated 04.07.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Virtual Certificate of Vehicle filed on 11.02.2026 vide diary no. 2871.

¶23

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 05.07.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 08.05.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶24

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit Rs.45,21,235.72, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount,

¶25

¶26

OA NO. 1005/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAJID TRANSPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶27

therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.01.2026.

¶29

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager , Kotak Mahindra Bank has been filed.

¶30

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶31

It was argued by learned counsel through 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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was 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 loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.45,21,235.72 (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Seventy Two Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶32

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 12.04.2025 till the realization.

¶33

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 loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶34

¶35

OA NO. 1005/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S MAJID TRANSPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶36

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 the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.45,21,235.72 (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Seventy Two Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 vehicle 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.

¶38

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 13.04.2026.

¶41

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.

¶42

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶43

Dated: 20.03.2026.

¶44

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶45

Presiding Officer,

¶46

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Majid Transport Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Majid Transport Company 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karnail Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Jagtar Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Anil Verma and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Malkit Singh

Indian Bank versus M/S Jai Mahadev Hosiery and Others