Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Rising India System Venture Pvt. Ltd.

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/525/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 22,01,648 with future interest from three defendants comprising a borrower, co-borrower, and guarantor. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendants' non-appearance, the Tribunal allowed the application. However, the relief on hypothecated assets was denied due to lack of detailed description. Future interest was directed at a simple rate of 9% and 8% per annum instead of the contractual compounded rates.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 17,29,390 with future interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 4,72,259 with future interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the application.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Rising India System Venture… — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 08.04.2022 Registered on .. 07.05.2022 Decided on .. 23.03.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 00--00--00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 525/2022.

¶3

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 and Branch Office at - 04^th Floor, Zone III, Nyati Unitree, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Rising India System Venture Pvt. Ltd. Lotus Plaza, SR No. 15/B.1, CTS No. 681, Near Sangam Press Road, Kothrud, Pune 411 038.

¶8

2 Ganesh Mahanteshwar Kalshetti, Galli No.1, Kirti Super Market, Near Datta Mandir, Indiranagar, Shiwsane, Pune 411 038.

¶9

3 Shailaja Harischandra Shinde, Flat No. 1, Swaroop Society Near MA, Pune 411 004.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 1 of 7

¶12

Appearances :-

¶13

For Applicant For Defendants

¶14

Advocate Pradip Yadav. Ex parte.

¶15

Total Claim Amount Rs.22,01,648=96

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 23^th October, 2025)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.22,01,648=96, by rounding Rs.22,01,649/- together with future interest at the contractual rate per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶20

Defendant No.1 is borrower, defendant No.2 is coborrower and defendant No. 3 is a guarantor. Defendant No.1 by board resolution authorized defendant No.2 to sign and execute loan documents on behalf of company.

¶21

As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to the defendants.

¶22

Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 2 of 7

¶23

Name of facility Amount Rs. Date of Sanction

¶24

1 Commercial Vehicle Loan 28,29,300/23.10.2018 A/c No. CV 3850106

¶25

2 Commercial Vehicle Loan 3,06,000/31.01.2019 A/c No. CV 3927190

¶26

Defendant No.3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan facilities availed by the defendants.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank in respect of Tata LPK 2518 having RTO Registration No. MH-12-RN-0115. The defendants have also executed demand promissory note on 31.01.2019 and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶28

Thereafter, at the request of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank had lent and advanced financial facility under the scheme of Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) under sanction letter dated 20.07.2020 for Rs.4,91,000/-.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 03.02.2022, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 3 of 7

¶30

defendants as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 14.03.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶31

Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 12.08.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶33

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Rahul Gade, Authorized Representative of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-12 along with list (Exhibit 10), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶35

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 4 of 7

¶37

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. So also, there is no document to show hypothecation of commercial vehicle having RTO registration No. MH-12RN-0115, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at the contractual rate of interest per annum. According to the applicant Bank, defendant Nos.1 to 3 agreed and undertaken to pay interest @9.99% per annum for Account No. CV 3850106 and @10.55% per annum for Account No. CV 3927190. So also, defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed and undertaken to pay interest @8% per annum for WCTL Loan Account No. 42133593. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for Account No. CV 3850106 and Account No. CV 3927190; and @8% per annum for WCTL Loan Account No. 42133593, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 5 of 7

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

A} Original Application No. 525/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶43

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.17,29,390/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety only) towards Account No. CV 3850106 and Account No. CV 3927190 along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

C} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,72,259/(Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine only) towards WCTL Loan Account No. 42133593 along with future interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

D} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶46

Sanap ( OA No. 525/2022 ) 6 of 7

¶47

E} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶48

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date : 23.03.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Rising India System Venture Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Rising India System Venture Pvt. Ltd.

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs Prabha

Icici Bank Limited versus Amol

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S. Radha Traders, Prop. Mr. Vipul Vijaykumar Agarwal

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mahadev Dattu Raskar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prakash Salvi

Canara Bank versus Nanda