Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sikander and Another

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/1385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a Recovery Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for Rs.20.31 lacs plus interest against two borrowers and a guarantor by default. The bank proved loan default; the Tribunal granted claim with adjusted simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,31,078.10 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from date of filing; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to enforce against hypothecated or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1385/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.04.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 27 ВКС, С 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

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sikander S/o Sh. Hargyan, R/o House No. 21, Near Barotha Mandir, Village Siha(126), District Palwal, Haryana-121105.

¶10

Smt. Savita W/o Sh. Sikander, R/o House No. 741, Near Barotha Mandir, Village Siha(126), District Palwal, Haryana-121105.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for the applicant None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 04.02.2026)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,31,078.10 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Seventy Eight and Paise Ten 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.

¶16

¶17

OA NO.1385/2025

¶18

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SIKANDER AND ANOTHER

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.22,80,000.00 vide Non Individual customer relation form dated 22.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan for commercial vehicle of Rs.22,96,281.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide loan cum guarantee agreement dated 02.03.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his commercial vehicle namely (i) “TATA Signa 4923’’ Bearing Registration No. HR38Z0659, Engine No. ISBES.92304091C63773660, Chassis No. MAT704132K3C07510 vide purchase price undertaking letter from applicant and Virtual Registration Copy, which is Annexure A3 to this OA;

¶20

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 02.03.2024, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 16.06.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶21

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.20,31,078.10, 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.

¶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 04.02.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

¶24

OA NO.1385/2025

¶25

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SIKANDER AND ANOTHER

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶27

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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,31,078.10 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Seventy Eight and Paise Ten 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.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 17.06.2025 till the realization.

¶29

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 of commercial 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 @8.00%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.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.20,31,078.10 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Seventy Eight and Paise

¶31

¶32

OA NO.1385/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SIKANDER AND ANOTHER

¶33

Ten Only) along with interest, jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 commercial vehicle of 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.05.2026.

¶37

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.

¶38

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶39

Dated: 17.04.2026

¶40

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶41

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sikander and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sikander 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 Sh. Tarsem Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Harmandeep Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Jiwan Enterprises and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Smt. Vandana Jain