Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sohan Singh and Others

DRT3 Aug 2026OA/466/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues. The court rejected the borrowers' claim regarding service defects and granted restoration of the ex parte decree, awarding interest at a reduced rate instead of the claimed higher rate.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,07,15,531.70 plus costs and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. The Applicant is entitled to issue a recovery certificate and execute the sa

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Sohan Singh and Others — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.466/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.08.2026

¶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

M/s S ohan Singh, through its Proprietor, H.No.17, Ward No.1, Bhatta Colony, Gharaunda, District Karnal, Haryana - 132114.

¶10

Sh. Sohan Singh S/o Sh. Laxman Singh, Proprietor M/s Sohan Singh, R/o H.No.17, Ward No.1, Bhatta Colony, Gharaunda, District Karnal, Haryana - 132114.

¶11

Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o H.No.17, Ward No.1, Near Gas Agency, Bhatta Colony, Gharaunda, District Karnal, Haryana - 132114.

¶12

…….. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Sharik Minhas, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2026).

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.1,07,15,531.70 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One and Paise Seventy Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh.

¶18

2 OA NO.466/2026

¶19

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

Rakesh Kumar, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

2. The brief facts of the OA are thatthe defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual
capacityapproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facilities for
purchase of two units of commercial vehicles and its bodies of
Rs.93,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form dated
02.12.2024, which isAnnexure A2to this OA. Thereafter,the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant
no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacityapproached the
applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle and its body of Rs.45,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer
Relation Form dated 28.12.2024, which isAnnexure A9to this OA.
3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles and its bodies of Rs.90,10,900.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by thedefendants vide
Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.12.2024, which is
Annexure A5to this OA.Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle and its body of Rs.45,01,750.00 and
the terms and conditions were duly accepted by thedefendants vide
Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 31.12.2024, which is
Annexure A10to this OA.Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.
4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2
hypothecated its movable assets i.e., (i) Commercial Vehicle along with its body namely TATA Signa 5530,
bearing Registration No. HR45E5962 Chassis No.
, MAT828045RAK16668, Engine No. 42J64411620 vide Tax Invoice
dated 02.12.2024, along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A3to this OA.

¶22

3 OA NO.466/2026

¶23

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

(ii) Commercial Vehicle along with its body namely TATA Signa 5530, bearing Registration No. HR45E1879, Chassis No.

¶25

MAT828045RAK16664, Engine No. 42K95487923 vide Tax Invoice dated 02.12.2024, along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶26

(iii) Commercial Vehicle along with its body namely TATA Signa 5530, bearing Registration No. HR45E6776, Chassis No.

¶27

MAT828045RAK16663, Engine No. 42K95487931 vide Tax Invoice dated 24.12.2024, along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶28

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Notes, Powers of Attorney, all dated 05.12.2024, 31.12.2024, which are Annexures A6, A7, A11 & A12 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 24.02.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificates, which are Annexures A14 to A19 to this OA.

¶29

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.1,07,15,531.70, 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.

¶30

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 28.07.2026.

¶31

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 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 had proved its case.

¶32

4 OA NO.466/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶33

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A19 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity a pproached 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 applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,07,15,531.70 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One and Paise Seventy 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.

¶34

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 12.02.2026 till the realization.

¶35

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 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.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.1,07,15,531.70 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One and Paise Seventy Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current

¶37

5 OA NO.466/2026

¶38

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

¶39

and future simple interest @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.

¶40

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.08.2026.

¶42

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.

¶43

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶44

Dated: 03.08.2026

¶45

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶46

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sohan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Sohan Singh 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mahesh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Knight Detective Security Service Pvt. Ltd. and Others

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

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ranjit Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Ashok Kumar and Sons and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Jap Trading Co. and Another