Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Chhminder Kumar and Others

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues against defaulting farmers accused of not repaying term loans for commercial vehicles. Ordered recovery of principal plus interest at 8% per annum and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are liable to pay the total principal amount along with simple interest at 8% per annum, costs, and future dues from the date of filing till realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.386/2026

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

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Chhminder Kumar S/o Sh. Jee Ram, R/o House No.343, Village Jagdhauli, Near Khera, Tehsil Jagadhari, District

¶10

Yamunnagar, Haryana - 133103.

¶11

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Jee Ram, R/o House No.343, Village Jagdhauli, Near Khera, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunnagar, Haryana - 133103.

¶12

3. Smt. Radha Rani W/o Sh. Jee Ram, R/o H. No. 257, Village Jagdhauli, Block No. 3, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunagar, Haryana - 133103.

¶13

……..Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶16

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026).

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.57,14,560.81 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty and Paise Eighty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh

¶19

Kumar, Manager of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute

¶20

2 OA NO.386/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. CHHMINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶21

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 the defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.21,50,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 21.11.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 & 3 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.24,13,900.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 21.10.2023, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 & 3 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.47,00,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 11.06.2024, which is Annexure A16 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility I for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.20,48,900.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 01.12.2022, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Thereafter, The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility II for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.24,13,900.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant nos. 1 & 3 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 01.11.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Thereafter, The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility III for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.46,20,100.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant nos. 1 & 3 vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 12.06.2024, which is Annexure A17 to this OA. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Movable Assets i.e., (i) TATA SIGNA 1512 bearing Registration No. HR58C5364, Chassis No. MAT563010N7J23034, Engine No. 3.3LNGD06JXX528158 vide Tax Invoice dated 22.11.2022 and Virtual Registration Copy, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA.

¶23

3 OA NO.386/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. CHHMINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶24

(ii) TATA LPT 1918 bearing Registration No. HR58C6895, Chassis No. MAT843207P7K20469, Engine No. 3.3LNGD11JWX526137 vide Tax Invoice dated 23.10.2023 and Virtual Registration Copy, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA.

¶25

(iii) TATA SIGNA 3530 bearing Registration No. HR58E5346, Chassis No. MAT569002R3E14860, Engine No. B6.7B62300D03142E64384564 vide Tax Invoice dated 31.05.2024 and Virtual Registration Copy, which are Annexures A14 & A15 to this OA.

¶26

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Notes, Powers of Attorney, dated 01.12.2022, 01.11.2023, 12.06.2024, which are Annexures A6, A7, A12, A13, A18 & A19 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 15.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A20 to this OA; Statement of accounts along with certificates, which are Annexures A21 to A23 to this OA.

¶27

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.57,14,560.81, 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.

¶28

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the 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 Ltd. h as been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶30

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A23 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached applicant for availing of the Term Loan facility I, which was granted to them, thereafter, the defendant 1 & 3 approached applicant for availing of

¶31

4 OA NO.386/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. CHHMINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶32

the Term Loan facilities II & III, which were 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 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.57,14,560.81 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty and Paise Eighty One 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.

¶33

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 all the loan accounts from 09.01.2026 till the realization.

¶34

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 @08.00%p.a. in 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.

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.7,09,954.30 (Rupees Seven Lacs Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Thirty Only) in Term Loan Facility I and the defendant nos. 1 & 3 are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.50,04,606.51 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Four Thousand Six Hundred Six and Paise Fifty One Only (Rs.15,03,091.36 in respect of Term Loan Facility II & Rs.35,01,515.15 in respect of Term Loan Facility III)), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest

¶36

5 OA NO.386/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. CHHMINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶37

@8.00%p.a. in 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.

¶38

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 08.07.2026. 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: 23.06.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Chhminder Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Chhminder Kumar 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