Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajveer Roadlines and Others

DRT4 Jun 2026OA/319/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 59,39,700.02 against Rajveer Roadlines and individuals. The Tribunal accepted the claim filed ex-parte and awarded simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 24% p.a.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was declared entitled to recover Rs. 59,39,700.02 jointly and severally with costs and simple interest @8.00% p.a., enforceable via sale of hypothecated vehicles or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.319/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.06.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 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, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana - 141001 through its Manager Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Rajveer Roadlines, through its proprietor Ms. Ritu Ghiloria, H.No. 263, Sector 11-D, Faridabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, Haryana – 121006.

¶10

Ms. Ritu Ghiloria D/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Proprietor M/s Rajveer Roadlines, R/o H.No. 263, Sector 11-D, Faridabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, Haryana – 121006.

¶11

Sh. Rahul Ghiloria S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad, R/o H.No. 263 Sector 11-D, Faridabad, Teshil and District Faridabad, Haryana – 121006.

¶12

……. .Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.59,39,700.02 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Paise Two Only).

¶17

2 OA NO.319/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S RAJVEER ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶18

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.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 in her individual capacity approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.44,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form dated 21.11.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 in her individual capacity approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.30,61,250.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form dated 24.06.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.44,05,450.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 04.12.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.32,01,089.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-CumGuarantee Agreement dated 03.07.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor in both the loan accounts. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 hypothecated its commercial vehicles i.e., (i). Mahindra Blazo 55 bearing Registration No. HR38AG8026, Engine No. PGPZJ17617, Chassis No. MA1VDARGFP6J77385 vide Tax Invoice dated 01.12.2023 along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. (Ii). Mahindra Blazo 55 bearing Registration No. HR38AH0287, Engine No. VHRZE13450, Chassis No. MA1UAARXFR6E78959 vide Tax

¶21

3 OA NO.319/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S RAJVEER ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶22

Invoice dated 30.06.2024 along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Notes, Powers of Attorney, dated 04.12.2023, 03.07.2024, which are Annexures A5, A6, A10 & A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 02.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificates, which are Annexures A13 & A14 to this OA.

¶23

5. 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.59,39,700.02, 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 02.06.2026.
7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limitedhas been filed.
8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.
9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in
view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone
unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.
From the perusal of all theAnnexures A1 to A14to this OA, it
is proved that the defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.
2 and defendant no. 2 in her individual capacity approached 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

¶24

4 OA NO.319/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S RAJVEER ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶25

applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.59,39,700.02 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Paise Two 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 in both the loan accounts from 13.12.2025 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 vehicles, 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 loan accounts 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 sum of Rs.59,39,700.02 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Paise Two Only), along with interest, 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 vehicles 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.

¶29

5 OA NO.319/2026

¶30

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S RAJVEER ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶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 25.06.2026. 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: 04.06.2026

¶32

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajveer Roadlines and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajveer Roadlines 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

State Bank of India versus M/S Grand Rock Fashions and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Balvir Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Friends Trading Company and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Ashroo and Another