Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Suresh Kumar and Another

DRT21 May 2026OA/534/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs.59.47 lacs against two borrowers who granted joint loans for commercial vehicles, noting their ex-parte absence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.59,47,536.45 plus simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to attach/sell personal assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.534/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.05.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its Registered Office at 27 ВКС, С-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, 2nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Tek Chand, R/o H.No. 123, Block No.1, Village Matlora, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana125121.

¶10

Ms. Pinki D/o Sh. Baljeet, R/o H.No. 108, Block No.2, Brahman Mohalla & Mandir, Village Matlora, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana-125121.

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 19.05.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.59,47,536.45 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Five 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.

¶17

¶18

OA NO.534/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.24,80,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 05.07.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Thereafter, defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility against used Commercial Vehicle of Rs.11,90,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 25.03.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.24,00,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility against used Commercial Vehicle of Rs.8,58,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 22.04.2025, which is Annexure A17 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility I for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.25,91,468.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 05.07.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility II against used Commercial Vehicle of Rs.11,58,226.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-CumGuarantee Agreement dated 27.03.2025, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility III for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.24,45,973.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-CumGuarantee Agreement dated 31.03.2025, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility IV against used Commercial Vehicle of Rs.8,68,163.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-CumGuarantee Agreement dated 22.04.02025, which is Annexure A18 to this OA.

¶21

¶22

OA NO.534/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶23

4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his Movable Vehicles	i.e.
(i) TATA LPT 1916 Bearing Registration No. HR39F	0135, Engine
No. 3.3LNGD11EVX510669, Chassis No. MAT843	204R5E09272
vide Tax Invoice and Virtual Registration Certific Annexure A2to this OA;	ate, which is
(ii) EICHER PRO 1114XP Bearing Registration No.	HR66B3805,
Engine No. E4246DJ204638, Chassis No. MC2G3L	RC0C142654
vide Virtual Registration Certificate, which isAnne this OA; (iii) TATA LPT 1916, Bearing Registration No.	xure A11to HR39G8579,
Engine No. 33LNGD11CUX507145, Ch	assis No.
MAT843205S7C05856 vide Virtual Registration Cert isAnnexure A16to this OA; (iv) TATA LPT 1109, Bearing Registration No. Engine No.4971TC41JRY931815, Chas MAT508583J7J21448 vide Virtual Registration Cert isAnnexure A21to this OA.	ificate, which HR69D2931, sis No. ificate, which

¶24

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 05.07.2024, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 27.03.2025, which are Annexures A9 & 10 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 31.03.2025, which are Annexures A14 & A15 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 22.04.2025, which are Annexures A19 & A20 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 23.02.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A22 to this OA; Statement of Accounts, which are Annexures A23 to A27 to this OA. 5. 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.59,47,536.45, 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.

¶25

¶26

OA NO.534/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶27

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 19.05.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has been filed. 8. 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 bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A27 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, 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 bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.59,47,536.45 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Five 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. 10. 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 from 14.02.2026 till the realization. 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 vehicles, 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

¶28

¶29

OA NO.534/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶30

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.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.59,47,536.45 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Five Only), along with interest, jointly and severally, with costs, current 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.06.2026.

¶35

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.

¶36

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 21.05.2026

¶37

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶38

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Suresh Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Suresh Kumar and Another

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

Deepak Kumar and Another versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harender Trading Co. and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Roadlines and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Shivam and Another

Central Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhpal Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Surinder Singh