Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Harjit Trading Co. and Others

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/427/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 42.27 lakhs. After reviewing documentary evidence unrebutted due to absence of defendants, the court declared the defendants liable and adjusted the interest rate from 24% to 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 42,27,580.48 with simple interest @ 8% p.a. from date of filing; mandate for execution via sale of hypothecated assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harjit Trading Co. and… — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 427/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.07.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited having its Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 and Branch Office at SCF no. 153-154155, Sector 9C, Chandigarh, also Branch Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank, SCO 131-132-133, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141001 through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Rakesh Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Harjit Trading Co through its Prop. Sh. Amarpal Singh, C/o Shop no. 116, Phase 1, Urban Estate, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141010

¶10

Sh. Amarpal Singh, S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh, R/o House no. 115, Street no. 3, GTB Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 144422

¶11

Ms. Harjit Kaur, C/o Sh. Bhajan Singh, R/o House no. 115, Street no. 3, GTB Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 144422

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for applicant (through VC)

¶15

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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. 42,27,580.48 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Eighty and Paise Forty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent

¶18

2 OA/427/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S HARJIT TRADING CO AND OTHERS

¶19

to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 71.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Customer Relation Form dated 15.10.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 80.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Customer Relation Form dated 26.03.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 again approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 15.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Customer Relation Form dated 10.07.2023, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 71.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 22.10.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 75.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 20.04.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 11.27 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 21.07.2023, which is Annexure A10 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. Ashok Leyland Ltd. UE2820/39 R RMC bearing Registration no. PB10JB7409, Engine no. PMPZ106393 and Chassis no. MB1H3LHD5PPMV3981 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 29.04.2026;

¶21

3 OA/427/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S HARJIT TRADING CO AND OTHERS

¶22

ii. Ashok Leyland Ltd. UE2820/39 R RMC bearing Registration no. PB10HS6109, Engine no. MDHZ412960 and Chassis no. MB1H3LHD3MRCR3361 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 29.04.2026;

¶23

iii. Ashok Leyland Ltd. UE2820/39 R RMC bearing Registration no. PB10HR8809, Engine no. PMPZ106003 and Chassis no. MB1H3LHD5PPMV3558 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 29.04.2026;

¶24

iv. Ashok Leyland Ltd. UE2820/39 R RMC bearing Registration no. PB10JB6909, Engine no. PMPZ106003 and Chassis no. MB1H3LHD5PPMV3558 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 29.04.2026;

¶25

v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. UE2820/39 R RMC bearing Registration no. PB10FV6229, Engine no. GAPZ125966 and Chassis no. MB1HTFD1GPAU6505 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 29.04.2026.

¶26

Documents Executed: DP Notes dated 22.10.2021, 20.04.2023 and

¶27

21.07.2023, which are Annexure A4, A7 and A9 to this OA; Statement of Accounts, which are Annexure A11 to A15 to this OA and Legal Notice dated 31.01.2026 along with receipts, which are Annexure A16 to A19 to this OA.

¶28

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. 42,27,580.48 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.

¶29

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 23.04.2026.

¶30

4 OA/427/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S HARJIT TRADING CO AND OTHERS

¶31

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited h as been filed.

¶32

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶33

It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶34

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A19 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. 42,27,580.48 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Eighty and Paise Forty Eight Only) from defendants, along with interest, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶35

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 23.01.2026 till the realization.

¶36

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

¶37

5 OA/427/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S HARJIT TRADING CO AND OTHERS

¶38

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 a total sum of Rs.42,27,580.48 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Eighty and Paise Forty Eight Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in all 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 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. 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 21.07.2026. 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: 06.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Harjit Trading Co. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Harjit Trading Co. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Mukhtiar Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Jagjiwan Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S H. K. Foods and Another

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Sandeep Miglani and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Mandeep Singh