Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/1059/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against borrowers and guarantor. Tribunal directed release of loan amount with reduced interest rate and grant of Recovery Certificate, noting executability via SARFAESI Act. Defendants were unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Order against defendants jointly and severally for Rs.39,09,382.57 with simple interest at 08% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; execution via SARFAESI Act permitted.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1059/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.03.2026

¶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

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Banarasi Lal, S/o Sh. Madan Lal, R/o H. no. 72, Ward no. 15 Vistar, Village Sehatpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, Haryana121003

¶10

2^nd Address: C/o Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., C 2, Malviya Nagar, Delhi- 110017.

¶11

Smt. Chinta Devi, W/o Banarasi Lal, R/o H. no. 72, Ward no. 15 Vistar, Shyam Colony, Part III, Street no. 4, Village Sehatpur, District Faridabad, Haryana- 121003

¶12

…. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 12.03.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.39,09,382.57 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Fifty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA NO. 1059/2025

¶19

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BANARASI LAL AND ANOTHER

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan for the purchase of two units of Commercial Vehicles of Rs. 40.50 Lacs vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 06.03.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA . 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.41,53,022/- for vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 29.03.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Commercial Vehicles namely Ashok Leyland Ltd. CA1215/47 H CC bearing Engine No.RPHZ400599, Chassis No.MB1AUGCC9RRPS6853 and Registration No.HR38AG3193 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. CA1215/47 H CC bearing Engine No.RPHZ402649, Chassis No.MB1AUGCC9RRPT2538 and Registration No.HR38AG0125 vide Virtual RCs of Vehicles filed on 12.03.2026 through diary no. 4375. Tax Invoices dated 27.03.2024, which are Annexure A3 and A4 to this OA. Documents executed: DP Note and Power of Attorney, both dated 29.03.2024, which are Annexure A6 and A7 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Statements of Accounts, which are Annexure A9 and A10 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.39,09,382.57 (Rs.19,62,265.82 in loan account no. LCV2891246 and Rs.19,47,116.75 in loan account no. LCV2891250), 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. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 12.03.2026.

¶21

3 OA NO. 1059/2025

¶22

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BANARASI LAL AND ANOTHER

¶23

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

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel 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 A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the term 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 that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.39,09,382.57 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Fifty Seven 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.

¶26

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 17.04.2025 till the realization.

¶27

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 hypothecated vehicles, 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 both 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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶29

4 OA NO. 1059/2025

¶30

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BANARASI LAL AND ANOTHER

¶31

Rs.39,09,382.57 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Fifty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both 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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.04.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.03.2026

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶33

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another

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. Narinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Babu Lal and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Jasvir Singh since deceased through his Lrs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohinder Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhbir Kaur and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Yadwinder Singh and Others