Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ms. Sunita Devi and Another

DRT10 Jun 2026OA/343/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against two Defendants for the recovery of a loan of Rs.26,81,787.86 along with interest. The respondents failed to appear, and the Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.26,81,787.86 along with simple interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing till realization, issued Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ms. Sunita Devi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.343/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.06.2026

¶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

Ms. Sunita Devi D/o Sh. Rajender Singh, R/o Village Ahulana (10), Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana - 131301.

¶10

Sh. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh, R/o Village Ahulana (10), Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana - 131301.

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2026).

¶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.26,81,787.86 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Eighty Six 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.

¶17

2 OA NO.343/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS MS. SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.28,55,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 03.02.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.29,04,646.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 26.02.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated her commercial vehicle i.e., TATA Signa 5530 bearing Registration No. HR63E1991, Engine No. B6.7B6A300D02122K64245583, Chassis No. MAT828025N2K20870 vide copy of E Vahan details, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 26.02.2025, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 16.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is 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.26,81,787.86, 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.

¶21

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 08.06.2026.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has 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.

¶23

3 OA NO.343/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS MS. SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,81,787.86 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Eighty Six 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.

¶25

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 the loan account from 13.01.2026 till the realization.

¶26

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 @8.00%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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.26,81,787.86 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Eighty Six Only), along with interest, jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization

¶28

4 OA NO.343/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS MS. SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER

¶29

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 .

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.06.2026.

¶33

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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 10.06.2026

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ms. Sunita Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Ms. Sunita Devi 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Subeg Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Arora Apparels and Others

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sh. Gursewak Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Vinod Cement and Building Material Store and Others

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Chandigarh Packages and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspreet Singh