Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Hukam Chand and Another

DRT2 Jun 2026OA/1275/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudged a recovery claim of over Rs.36 lakh by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The court allowed the application, reduced interest to 8% p.a., and directed recovery from hypothecated vehicle or personal assets under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Declaration for recovery of Rs.36,62,557.09 with 8% simple interest; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to enforce via SARFAESI Act provisions.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Hukam Chand and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1275/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.06.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 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, 2nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Hukam Chand S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram R/o H. No.479, Old Hamida, Behind Mahindra Motors, Ward No.29, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001.

¶9

2nd Address: C/o Markanday Road Lines, Saharanpur Road, Near Sugar Mill, Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001.

¶10

Smt. Anju Gera W/o Sh. Hukam Chand R/o H. No.479, Old Hamida, Behind Mahindra Motors, Ward No.29, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for Applicant.

¶14

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2026)

¶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.36,62,557.09 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Nine Only). The

¶17

¶18

OA/1275/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. HUKUM CHAND AND ANOTHER

¶19

Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager,
of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application videCopy of Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which isAnnexure A1to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 approached
the applicant for sanction of Commercial Vehicle Loan of
Rs.10,05,000.00 videIndividual Customer Relation Form dated
27.02.2019, which isAnnexure A2to this OA.Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor.
3. The applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.
10,68,386.00 vide Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement alongwith
Schedules dated 25.03.2019, which isAnnexure A3to this OAand
terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.
4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his commercial vehicle that’s
TATA LPT 2518 TC, bearing Registration no. HR55O6541, Engine No.
B591803121F63264884, Chassis No. MAT448035C2F12606, vide
Registration Certificate, which isAnnexure A6to this OA.
Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 25.03.2019,
which isAnnexure A4to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2019, which isAnnexure A5to this OA; Certificate of Balance Confirmation
dated 28.02.2022, which isAnnexure A7to this OA; Certificate of Balance Confirmation dated 31.12.2024, which isAnnexure A8to this
OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 22.08.2025, which isAnnexure A9to this
OA; Statement of Account, which isAnnexure A10to this OA.
5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.36,62,557.09 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Nine Only), 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.

¶20

¶21

OA/1275/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. HUKUM CHAND AND ANOTHER

¶22

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. 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 defendant no.1 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. 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, account 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.36,62,557.09 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Nine Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendente 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.

¶23

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 vehicle, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan

¶24

¶25

OA/1275/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. HUKUM CHAND AND ANOTHER

¶26

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

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.36,62,557.09 (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Nine 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 defendant no. 1 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 23.06.2026

¶30

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: 02.06.2026.

¶31

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Hukam Chand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Hukam Chand 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Hariom Enterprises and Others

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Sant Attar Singh Ji Ksk and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Garvit Trans Logistics and Others

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmej Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Shree Sai Impex and Others