Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of outstanding dues from a borrower and guarantor. The court reduced claimed interest to 8% p.a. and directed recovery from hypothecated vehicle proceeds followed by attachment of personal assets.
Picture
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 649/2026
PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.05.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 09.06.2026
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.
……..Applicant Versus
Advocates:
Argued by Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Applicant.
None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 06.06.2026)
FINAL ORDER
2
OA/649/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. ANOOP AND ANOTHER
Tax Invoice & Virtual Registration Certificate dated 11.09.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.
Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 18.09.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 17.04.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.
3
OA/649/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. ANOOP AND ANOTHER
From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him. Defendant no.2 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.37,78,450.66 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and Paise Sixty Six 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 11.04.2026 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 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.37,78,450.66 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and Paise Sixty Six Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan
4
OA/649/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. ANOOP AND ANOTHER
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.
12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)
Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank proved debt recovery under the RDB Act against the borrower and guarantor.
What rate of interest is appropriate for the pending period considering market conditions.
What mode of recovery via hypothecated vehicle sale and attachment of personal assets is appropriate.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Sh. Anoop S/o Sh. Shishpal
Sh. Vikram S/o Sh. Shishpal
MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
