Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Lord Shiva Transport and Others

DRT5 May 2026OA/219/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover a term loan. The court reduced the claimed interest rate from 24% to 8% p.a. and ordered the defendants to pay the principal along with simple interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared liable to pay Rs. 22,20,885.17 with simple interest @ 8% p.a., costs, and enforcement through sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Lord Shiva Transport… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 219/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2026

¶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

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Lord Shiva Transport, through its Proprietor, Shop No. 1, Near Shaym Gas Agency, Bye Pass Road, Adampur, Tehsil & District Hisar, Haryana-125052

¶10

Sh. Suresh s/o Sh. Bala Ram, Proprietor M/s Lord Shiva Transport, R/o H.No. 121, Block No.1, Near Bus Stand, Village Dhani Kumharan Majra, Mohabatpur, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana-125052

¶11

Sh. Bala Ram s/o Sh. Nihal Singh, R/o Village Dhani Mohabatpur, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana-125052

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2026

¶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.22,20,885.17 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Seventeen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh

¶18

2 OA/219/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. M/S LORD SHIVA TRANSPORT AND OTHERS

¶19

Kumar, Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution of Bank dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.23,76,751/- vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 04.01.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no.3 stood as Guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.22,26,751/- for purchase of Vehicle and a Term Loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- for purchase of Body of the Vehicle, vide Loan-cum Guarantee Agreement along with Schedules dated 04.01.2025, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. The defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, mortgaged its Commercial Vehicle i.e. Eicher Pro 3019 bearing REGISTRATION NO. HR-39F-8229, Engine No. E426CDRL501740, CHASSIS No. MC2CASRC0RL120686, vide Tax voice & Virtual Registration Certificate dated 04.01.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed : DP Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 04.01.2025, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice along with its postal receipts dated 23.12.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Accounts with certificate, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs.22,20,885.17 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.

¶23

3 OA/219/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. M/S LORD SHIVA TRANSPORT AND OTHERS

¶24

6.	The defendants were served summons to appear before this
Trib proc	unal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were eeded ex-parte on 29.04.2026.
7.	In support of the OA, affidavit ofSh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager
Kota	k Mahindra Bank,has been filed.
8.	Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.
9.	It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary
evid	ence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant
had	proved its case.

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant nos. 1&2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. Defendant no.3 stood as Guarantor. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, both the accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,20,885.17 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Seventeen 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 pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant 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 assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising

¶28

4 OA/219/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. M/S LORD SHIVA TRANSPORT AND OTHERS

¶29

the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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. 22,20,885.17 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Seventeen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 26.05.2026 15. 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: 05.05.2026.

¶32

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Lord Shiva Transport and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Lord Shiva Transport 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rakesh Yadav and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Mehnga Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Jaswant Singh

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Harpreet Singh Mankoo