Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Suraj Transport Service and Others

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/381/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed under Section 19 RDB Act 1993 for recovery of Rs. 66.97 lakhs by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. from borrower and guarantor. Tribunal granted 8% simple interest instead of claimed 24% and ordered issuance of Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing repayment of Rs. 66,97,074.72 with simple interest @8% p.a., issuing Recovery Certificate, and permitting recovery via sale of hypothecated assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Suraj… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 381/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.06.2026

¶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, Punjab- 141001 through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Suraj Transport Service through its Proprietor, 1209, Dhandari Kalan, GT Road, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab141010

¶10

Sh. Suraj Parkash, S/o Sh. Ram Sagar, Proprietor M/S Suraj Transport Service, R/o House no. 458/5F, Street no. 6, Ward no. 72, Giaspura, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141003

¶11

2^nd Address: Street no. 3, Giaspura, New Neetu PR Dealer, New Samraty Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141001

¶12

Smt. Mamta Devi, W/o Sh. Suraj Parkash, R/o House no. 458/5F, Street no. 6, Ward no. 72, Giaspura, Ludhiana, Punjab141003

¶13

2^nd Address: Street no. 3, Giaspura, New Neetu PR Dealer, New Samraty Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141001

¶14

….……Defendants

¶15

Advocates:

¶16

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶17

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026)

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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. 66,97,074.72 (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seventy Four and Paise Seventy Two

¶20

2 OA/381/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SURAJ TRANSPORT SERVICE AND OTHERS

¶21

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.

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 50.00 Lacs vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 16.02.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 25.00 Lacs vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 02.03.2022, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 again approached the applicant for grant of Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 49.00 Lacs vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 05.04.2022, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶23

The applicant sanctioned Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.46,84,642.00 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 14.02.2022, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.24,06,543.00 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 25.02.2022, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Light Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.47,89,766.00 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 25.02.2022, which is Annexure A16 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor in all the loan accounts. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their movable assets namely: i. Tata Motors Ltd. 1512G bearing Registration no. PB10HT6352, Chassis no. MAT563016N5A00469 and Engine no. 3.8SGI81PYX813452 vide Tax Invoice dated 01.02.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and Virtual RC filed on 22.06.2026; ii. Tata LPT 1512 bearing Registration no. PB10HT6482, Chassis no. MAT563016N5A00471 and Engine no. 3.8SGI81PYX813422

¶24

3 OA/381/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SURAJ TRANSPORT SERVICE AND OTHERS

¶25

vide Tax Invoice dated 01.02.2022, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and Virtual RC filed on 22.06.2026;

¶26

iii. Tata Motors Ltd. 1512G bearing Registration no. PB10HT6382, Chassis no. MAT563016N5A00603 and Engine no.
3.8SGI81PYX813567 vide Tax Invoice dated 21.02.2022, which isAnnexure A9to this OA and Virtual RC filed on 22.06.2026;
iv. Tata Motors Ltd. 1512G bearing Registration no. PB10JH3471,
Chassis no. MAT563016NAB02273 and Engine no.
3.8SGI81BXX804364 vide Tax Invoice dated 25.03.2022, which isAnnexure A14to this OA and Virtual RC filed on 22.06.2026;
v. Tata Motors Ltd. 1512G bearing Registration no. PB10JH3984, Chassis no. MAT563016NAB02272 and Engine no.
3.8SGI81BXX804233 vide Tax Invoice dated 25.03.2022, which isAnnexure A15to this OA and Virtual RC filed on 22.06.2026.
Documents Executed: DP Note and Power of Attorney, both dated
14.02.2022, which areAnnexure A6 and A7to this OA; DP Note and
Power of Attorney, both dated 25.02.2022, which areAnnexure A11
and A12to this OA; DP Note and Power of Attorney, both dated 04.04.2022, which areAnnexure A17 and A18to this OA; Loan
Recall Notice dated 27.01.2026, which isAnnexure A19to this OA
and Statement of Accounts, which areAnnexure A20 to A29to this
OA.
5. 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. 66,97,074.72 which is recoverable and the defendants
were served recall notice 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 20.06.2026.
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.

¶27

4 OA/381/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SURAJ TRANSPORT SERVICE AND OTHERS

¶28

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.

¶29

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A29 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor in all the loan accounts. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, 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. 66,97,074.72 (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seventy Four and Paise Seventy Two Only) from defendants, along with interest, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶30

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 07.02.2026 till the realization.

¶31

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 the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @8.00% p.a. in all 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.

¶32

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.66,97,074.72 (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seventy Four and Paise Seventy Two Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in all the loan

¶33

5 OA/381/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S SURAJ TRANSPORT SERVICE AND OTHERS

¶34

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 assets of defendant nos. 1 and 2 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.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 08.07.2026.

¶38

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.

¶39

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶40

Dated: 23.06.2026

¶41

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶42

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Suraj Transport Service and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Suraj Transport Service 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurmit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Nutech Engineers Inc. and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ravinder Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Ragvendra Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balwant Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gurpreet Kaur