Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Shivansh Sharma and Others

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/1288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 26.66 lakhs advanced as a vehicle loan. The court quashed the claimed interest rate in favor of a uniform 8% simple interest order due to market conditions and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,66,050/- with uniform simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; enforcement via sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets authorized.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Shivansh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1288/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.03.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a Banking Company, carrying on the Banking Business under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai and branches at different places one at Sangrur, through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager of Applicant

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Shivansh Sharma, S/o Sh. Bikram, R/o Ward no. 8, Village Ghanor, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala, Punjab- 140702

¶10

Sh. Bikram, S/o Sh. Sio Ram, R/o Ward no. 8, Village Ghanor, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala, Punjab- 140702

¶11

Sh. Parminder Singh, S/o Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, R/o H. no. 59, Nagar Panchayat, Ward no. 11, Village Ghanor, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala, Punjab- 140401

¶12

Sh. Jagdeep Singh, S/o Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, R/o Ward no. 11, Village Ghanor, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala, Punjab- 140702

¶13

…. Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Shri Sumeet Sehgal, Advocate for applicant

¶16

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2025

¶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.26,66,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Fifty 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.

¶19

2 OA NO. 1288/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SHIVANSH SHARMA AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 approached the applicant for grant of Vehicle Loan for purchase of Commercial Vehicle vide Application Forms dated 21.01.2023, which are Annexure A2 to A5 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Vehicle Loan of Rs.43,99,955/vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.02.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Terms and conditions were duly accepted by defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶21

Defendants hypothecated his Commercial Vehicle namely TATA LPT 4825 BSVI 10X2, bearing Engine no. B6.7B6A250D02132A64263837, Registration no.PB11DC8588 and Chassis no.MAT820006P1A02387 vide RC filed on 31.12.2025 in compliance of order dated 26.11.2025 through diary no. 21719; Tax Invoice, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: DP Note, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Power of Attorney, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexure A10 and A11 to this OA; Notice dated 12.08.2025 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A12 to A16 to this OA.

¶23

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.26,66,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Fifty 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. 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 21.11.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

3 OA NO. 1288/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SHIVANSH SHARMA AND OTHERS

¶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 A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the vehicle 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, 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.26,66,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Fifty 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.

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.21%p.a. plus 2% penal interest with monthly rests from the date of filing the application 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 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 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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,66,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Fifty 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

¶29

4 OA NO. 1288/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SHIVANSH SHARMA AND OTHERS

¶30

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.

¶31

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶34

Tribunal on 17.04.2026.

¶35

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.

¶36

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.03.2026

¶37

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶38

Presiding Officer,

¶39

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Shivansh Sharma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Shivansh Sharma 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

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. Banarasi Lal and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohinder Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhbir Kaur and Others