Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Ashroo and Another

DRT4 Jun 2026OA/600/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of dues. It awarded simple interest at 08% per annum, below the claimed 24%, owing to exercise of discretionary power to ensure justice. Recovery was ordered jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 53,31,836.49 jointly and severally with simple interest at 8% p.a. and costs; liberty to enforce through SARFAESI Act or attachment of assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.600/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.06.2026

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

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ashroo, S/o Sh. Karshaid Khan, R/o Village Illewal, Post Office Gawalthai, Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh- 174201

¶10

2^nd Address: House no. 143, Kathera, Nangal, District Rupnagar, Punjab- 140125

¶11

Sh. Irfan, S/o Sh. Majeed, R/o House no. 5, Village Illewal, Post Office Gawalthai, Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh- 174201

¶12

………. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2026)

¶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. 53,31,836.49 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh.

¶18

2 OA NO.600/2026

¶19

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. ASHROO AND ANOTHER

¶20

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

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 75.00 Lacs for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 15.02.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loans of Rs. 37,56,700.00 and Rs. 37,56,700.00 for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles vide Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 16.02.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Commercial Vehicles namely: i. Tata Signa 5530.S BSVI 4X2 bearing Registration no. PB65BG3849, Engine no. 32M95446228 and Chassis no. MAT828048RAA00510 vide Tax Invoice dated 10.02.2024 and Virtual RC, which is Annexure A3 to this OA;

¶22

ii. Tata Signa 5530.S BSVI 4X2 bearing Registration no. PB65BG8849, Engine no. 32M95446293 and Chassis no. MAT828048RAA00491 vide Tax Invoice dated 10.02.2024 and Virtual RC, which is Annexure A4 to this OA;

¶23

Documents executed: DP Note and Power of Attorney, both dated 16.02.2024, which are Annexure A6 and A7 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 20.03.2026, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Statement of Accounts, which are Annexure A9 to A10 to this OA. 5. 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. 53,31,836.49, 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.

¶24

3 OA NO.600/2026

¶25

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. ASHROO AND ANOTHER

¶26

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 02.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Defendants 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, 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. 53,31,836.49 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Nine 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.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 18.03.2026 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

4 OA NO.600/2026

¶29

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. ASHROO AND ANOTHER

¶30

just and appropriate to grant simple interest @08.00% p.a. in both 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.
11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the
defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of
Rs.53,31,836.49 (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Forty Nine Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in both
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.
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 25.06.2026.
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: 04.06.2026
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Ashroo and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Ashroo 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

State Bank of India versus M/S Grand Rock Fashions and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajveer Roadlines and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Balvir Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Friends Trading Company and Others