Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Lal and Others

DRT4 Jun 2026OA/604/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of outstanding loan dues. The court rejected the claim for 24% interest, exercising discretion to grant simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing. A Recovery Certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued directing payment of Rs.20,15,148.77 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. The applicant is directed to recover the amount via execution or attachment of assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sohan Lal and Others — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 604/2026

¶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 Limited, 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, 2nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sohan Lal s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar r/o H.No.-19, Block No-01, Village Chuharpur Kalan, Malikpur Khadir, Tehsil Partap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶10

Smt. Promila Devi w/o Sh. Sohan Lal r/o H.No.-19, Block No-01, Village Chuharpur Kalan, Malikpur Khadir, Tehsil Partap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶11

Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Malkhan Singh r/o H.No.-170, Village Chuharpur Kalan, Malikpur Khadir, Tehsil Partap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana-135106.

¶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

¶18

¶19

OA/604/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

¶20

the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,15,148.77 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Seventy Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Copy of Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 & 2, approached the applicant for sanction of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.29.00 lacs vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 25.12.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 28,64,099.00 vide Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement along with Schedules dated 20.01.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA a nd terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his commercial vehicle that’s TATA SIGNA 5525, bearing Registration no. HR58C7779, Engine No. 32C95414709, Chassis No. MAT828022PAC04799; Registration Certificate of Vehicle, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 20.01.2025, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 20.01.2025, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 20.03.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶23

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.20,15,148.77 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Seventy Seven Only), 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. 6. 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.

¶24

¶25

OA/604/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

¶26

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

¶27

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶28

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.

¶29

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the Defendant no.1 & 2, approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. They had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,15,148.77 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Seventy Seven 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.

¶30

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 18.03.2026 till the realization.

¶31

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 vehicle, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount, ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶33

¶34

OA/604/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

¶35

Rs.20,15,148.77 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Seventy Seven Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 vehicle of the 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.

¶36

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.06.2026

¶39

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.

¶40

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶41

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sohan Lal 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

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