Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Namdev Roadline and Others

DRT11 Jun 2026OA/214/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application under the RDB Act for recovery of dues against a borrower and guarantor. The Tribunal directed recovery of the principal amount along with simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 24%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.32,01,246.05 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Namdev Roadline and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 214/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 11.06.2026

¶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

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Namdev Roadline, Through its Proprietor, H.No.18, Village Gurthali, Near Bus Stand Gurthali, Tehsil Nirwana, District Jind, Haryana-126116.

¶10

Sh. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Hazura Singh, Proprietor M/s Namdev Roadline R/o Village Gurthali, Near Bus Stand Gurthali, Tehsil Nirwana, District Jind, Haryana-126116.

¶11

Sh. Hazura Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o H.No.16, Village Rajgarh, Block-2, Tehsil Nirwana, District Jind, Haryana-126116.

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for Applicant.

¶15

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2026)

¶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.32,01,246.05 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six and Paise Five 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.

¶18

¶19

OA/214/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S NAMDEV ROADLINE AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.39,36,953.00 vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 29.10.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.39,36,953.00, vide Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement along with Schedules dated 03.11.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, hypothecated its vehicle namely TATA Signa 2823 bearing Registration no. HR56C3963, Engine no. B5.6B62220D01142K64412491 and Chassis no. MAT802301R2K17159; Tax Invoice & Virtual Registration Certificate dated 28.10.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 03.11.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 03.11.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice along with its postal receipts dated 23.12.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statements of Account, which are Annexure A8 to 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.32,01,246.05 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six and Paise Five 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra B ank Limited, has been filed.

¶21

¶22

OA/214/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S NAMDEV ROADLINE AND OTHERS

¶23

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶24

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.

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. Defendant no.3 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.32,01,246.05 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six and Paise Five 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.

¶26

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 10.12.2025 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 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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

OA/214/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S NAMDEV ROADLINE AND OTHERS

¶31

Rs.32,01,246.05 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six and Paise Five 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.06.2026

¶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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶36

Dated: 11.06.2026.

¶37

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶38

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Namdev Roadline and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Namdev Roadline 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Aadhya Fashion and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspreet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Nanaksar Infra and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Aalam Enterprises and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar