Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters

DRT25 May 2026OA/69/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters and others for recovery of dues of Rs. 37,66,491.61. The Tribunal directed payment with interest at 8% p.a. and authorized recovery through collateral sale under SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 37,66,491.61 plus 8% p.a. interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery via sale of hypothecated or personal assets authorized. Adjournment fixed for 16.06.2026.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.69/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 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, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters through its proprietor Sh. Ajay Kumar, Garhi Bolni Road, Kasola Chowk, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana-123401.

¶10

Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Dhara Singh, Proprietor M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters, R/o H.No. 92/1B, Village & Post Office Kasola (167), Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana-123401.

¶11

Sh. Dhara Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o H.No. 92/1B, Village & Post Office Kasola (167), Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana123401.

¶12

……..Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026).

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.37,66,491.61 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and Paise Sixty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh.

¶18

¶19

OA NO.69/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S S.S. KHATANA LIFTERS AND OTHERS

¶20

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.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility against used construction equipment machinery of Rs.28,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form date 16.09.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility against used construction equipment machinery of Rs.63,00,000.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form date 15.04.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility I against used construction equipment machinery of Rs.28,17,408.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 03.12.2022, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility II against used construction equipment machinery of Rs.63,27,830.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 22.05.2024, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor in both the loan accounts. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated its Movable Assets i.e.,

¶23

(i). Construction Equipment Machinery, Make JLG, Model 800AJ, bearing Serial No. 0300119341 vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 01.12.2022, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶24

¶25

OA NO.69/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S S.S. KHATANA LIFTERS AND OTHERS

¶26

(ii). Construction Equipment Machinery i.e. 120 HX JLG Boom Lift bearing Serial No. 0300147845 vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 21.05.2024, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Documents executed: Purchase Price Undertaking Letter dated 01.12.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 03.12.2022, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA; Purchase Price Undertaking Letter dated 21.05.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 22.05.224, which are Annexures A12 & 13 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 29.08.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Statements of Accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A15 to A16 to this OA.

¶27

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.37,66,491.61, 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.

¶28

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 21.05.2026.

¶29

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

¶30

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity approached applicant

¶31

¶32

OA NO.69/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S S.S. KHATANA LIFTERS AND OTHERS

¶33

for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them, defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor 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.37,66,491.61 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and Paise Sixty 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 amount.

¶34

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 in both the loan accounts from 16.08.2025 till the realization.

¶35

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 machineries, 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 just and appropriate to grant simple interest @8.00% 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.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.37,66,491.61 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety One and Paise Sixty One Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the

¶37

¶38

OA NO.69/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S S.S. KHATANA LIFTERS AND OTHERS

¶39

amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated construction equipment machineries of defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 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.

¶40

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 16.06.2026.

¶41

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.

¶42

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶43

Dated: 25.05.2026

¶44

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. M/s S.S. Khatana Lifters

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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Honey Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s Geomovers Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Honey Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ajmer Fuelogic Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kartar Singh