Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Spot Industries and Others

DRT27 Jul 2026OA/270/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application to recover an outstanding loan amount of Rs.39.17 Lakhs from the borrower and guarantor. The court granted recovery of principal with simple interest at 8% p.a. and directions for enforcement via sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared liable to pay Rs.39,17,558.85 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Enforcement through sale of hypothecated vehicle allowed.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Sun Spot Industries and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.270/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.07.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051, and Branch Office at SCO 131-132-133, Second Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana - 141001 through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Sun Spot Industries through its Proprietor Sh. Rohit Kumar, Street No. 2, Parshoram Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001.

¶10

Sh. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Randev, R/o House No. 131a, New Baldev Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab – 144001.

¶11

Smt. Charu Sharma W/o Sh. Rohit Kumar, R/o H No 131, Street

¶12

No. 3, New Baldev Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab – 144001.

¶13

…….. Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2026).

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.39,17,558.85 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Eighty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA NO.270/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SUN SPOT INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity a pproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facilities for purchase of Commercial Vehicle and its body of Rs.51,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form dated 15.09.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of Commercial Vehicle and its body of Rs.51,91,946.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 27.09.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this O A. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated its movable asset i.e., Commercial Vehicle namely TATA LPT 4225 bearing Registration No. PB08FF8280, Chassis No. MAT793012P5G07692, Engine No. 32F95427842, vide Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 24.07.2026, in compliance of order dated 08.04.2026. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, dated 27.09.2023 which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with and certificate, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 10.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A7 to A10 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.39,17,558.85, 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 30.03.2026.

¶23

3 OA NO.270/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SUN SPOT INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶24

7.	In support of the OA, affidavit ofSh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized
Repr	esentative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed.
8.	Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing 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 A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity a pproached applicant for availing of loan facilities which were granted to them, defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.39,17,558.85 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Eighty 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 27.12.2025 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 loans 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 both the

¶28

4 OA NO.270/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SUN SPOT INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶29

loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.39,17,558.85 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Eighty Five 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 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.

¶30

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 11.08.2026. 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: 27.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Spot Industries and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sun Spot Industries 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. Jagsir Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sarabjit Atwal@ Sarabjit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kulbir and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S N. K. Industries and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sanjay Tiwari and Others