Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Another

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/204/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application for recovery of an outstanding loan due against defendants who failed to repay a vehicle facility. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate and ordered payment with reduced simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; defendants directed to pay Rs. 24,59,354.88 with 08% simple interest; execution proceedings against vehicle and personal assets mandated.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Another — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.204/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2026

¶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 Versus

¶8

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Ranveer Singh, R/o Village and Post Office Mandothi (53), Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana- 124506

¶9

Sh. Arjun Singh, S/o Sh. Chand Ram, R/o House no. 64, Village and Post Office Khairpur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana- 124507

¶10

……Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for applicant

¶13

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2026)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 24,59,354.88 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Eighty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. S h. 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.204/2026

¶18

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS SH. SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Vehicle Loan of Rs. 42.50 Lacs vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 24.01.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Vehicle Loan of Rs. 44,03,587.00 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 27.01.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his movable property namely Ashok Leyland GP4825/66 H CO bearing Registration no.RJ52GA9787, Engine no.NCPZ135376 and Chassis No. MB1NECHD8NPCT8642 vide Tax Invoice dated 18.01.2023 and Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: DP Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 27.01.2023, which are Annexure A5 and A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 23.12.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Account, 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 loan account there was a debit of Rs. 24,59,354.88, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice 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 30.03.2026.

¶23

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. 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 Annexure A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants

¶24

¶25

OA NO.204/2026

¶26

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS SH. SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶27

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, 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. 24,59,354.88 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Eighty Eight 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 10.12.2025 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 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 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 a total sum of Rs.24,59,354.88 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Eighty Eight 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

¶31

¶32

OA NO.204/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS SH. SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶33

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 27.04.2026.

¶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 . Dated: 07.04.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar 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

Axis Bank Limited versus M/S Bestway Health and Future Private Limited and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. (earlier known as Uti Bank Ltd.) versus Sh. Shamsher Singh

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Daljit Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Chhapola Bus Service and Tour Travels and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Manoj Powder Coating and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Taranjit Singh and Another