Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Babu Lal and Another

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/64/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against two borrowers for recovery of a defaulted term loan. The Court fixed simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 48,57,919.91 with interest at 8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to execute against hypothecated or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.64/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.03.2026

¶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 Versus

¶8

Sh. Babu Lal S/o Sh. Ram Sawroop, R/o H. No. 51, Village

¶9

Shahpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana-123501.

¶10

Sh. Sachin S/o Sh. Babu Lal, R/o Village Shahpur (33), Tehsil

¶11

Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana-123501.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2026

¶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. 48,57,919.91 (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Ninety One 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.

¶18

¶19

OA NO. 64/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BABU LAL AND ANOTHER

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loans for purchase of commercial vehicles i.e. TATA LPT 1921 and their Body vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 25.04.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Limit of Rs.49,78,342.00 (Two Term Loans of Rs.22,35,174.00 each for purchase of commercial vehicles and Two Term Loans of Rs.2,53,997.00 each for bodies of vehicles) and terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants. Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.05.2025, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his commercial vehicles i.e. (i) TATA 1921 LPT CW68 21OM6FT2, Bearing Registration No. HR47G8326, Chassis No. MAT837012S1D11926, Engine No. B6.7B62250D061CUX104110. Tax Invoice dated 30.04.2025 and Virtual Registration Certificate of Vehicle, is Annexure A3 to this OA. (ii) TATA 1921 LPT CW68 21OM6FT2, Bearing Registration No. HR47G2391, Chassis No. MAT837012S1D11927, Engine No. DUX104127. Tax Invoice dated 02.05.2025 and Virtual Registration Certificate of Vehicle, is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note dated 05.05.2025, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Power of Attorney, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Loan recall notice dated 05.12.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Statement of Accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A9 to A12 to this OA.

¶24

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. 48,57,919.91, 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. 64/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BABU LAL AND ANOTHER

¶27

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2026.

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., has been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned 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 Annexures A1 to A12 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, 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. Rs. 48,57,919.91 (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Ninety One Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

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 02.12.2025 till the realization.

¶32

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 mortgaged property/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

¶33

¶34

OA NO. 64/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. BABU LAL AND ANOTHER

¶35

Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all 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 a total sum of Rs. 48,57,919.91 (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Ninety One Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in all 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 the defendants 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 16.04.2026. 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: 24.03.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Babu Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Babu Lal 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

Indian Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh and Another

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S M. R. Jain Traders and Another

Indian Bank versus Suresh Chander Alias Suresh Kumar through Legal Heirs

Meenu Gupta versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S M M Rice Land Private Limited and Others

Union Bank of India versus M/S Good Luck Foods and Others