Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Jai M P B M Stone Crusher and Others

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/71/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application seeking recovery of a loan outstanding. The court confirmed the debt amount despite no appearance by respondents, modified the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum, directed issuance of a recovery certificate, and authorized sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,04,86,432.90 along with simple interest at 8% p.a.; issue of Recovery Certificate; liberty to proceed under SARFAESI Act.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Jai M P B M Stone… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.71/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.01.2026

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

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Jai M.P.B.M Stone Crusher, Through its Proprietor Sh. Ajay Rathor, Village Kiri, Post office Rushal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-171211.

¶10

Sh. Ajay Rathor S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Rathor, R/o Rathor Niwas Lower Khalini, New Marketing Board View Hill Panchihatt, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-171002.

¶11

Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh, R/o Village Kiri Up Mahal Rusla, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh-171210.

¶12

………. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant Defendants are ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.1,04,86,432.90 (Rupees One Crore Four lacs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and paisa Ninety Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide resolution dated 29.11.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/71/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S JAI M P B STONE CRUSHER AND OTHERS

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of term loan facility of Rs.1,20,60,000/- for purchase of four units of commercial vehicles, term loan facility of Rs.37,30,000/- for purchase of Construction equipment machinery, term loan facility of Rs.66,50,000/- for purchase of two units of construction equipment machineries, term loan facility for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles of Rs.65,00,000/- vide non individual customer relation forms dated 12.05.2022, 20.09.2022, 26.05.2023 & 01.01.2024, which are Annexures A6, A10, A15 & A23 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned term loan of Rs.1,24,75,188/- for purchase of four units of commercial vehicles, term loan of Rs.37,89,565/- for purchase of Construction equipment machinery, term loan of Rs.67,51,812/- for purchase of two units of construction equipment machineries, term loan of Rs.66,00,723/- for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide loan cum guarantee agreements along schedule of payment dated 12.05.2022, 03.10.2022, 23.06.2023 & 03.01.2024, which are Annexures A7, A12, A18 & 24 to this OA . Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor had hypothecated its moveable assets i.e. I. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 1923, bearing registration No. HP-95A-5592, Chassis No. MEC831EBANP116527, Engine No. 926956D0113128. II. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 1923, bearing registration No. HP-52C-5592, Chassis No. MEC831EBBNP117560, Engine No. 926956D0121207. III. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 1923, bearing registration No. HP-52D-5592, Chassis No. MEC831EBANP116817, Engine No. 926956D0117498.

¶19

3 OA/71/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S JAI M P B STONE CRUSHER AND OTHERS

¶20

IV. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 1923, bearing registration No. HP-07E-5592, Chassis No. MEC831EBANP116475, Engine No. 926956D0117893.

¶21

V. Construction Equipment Machine, bearing machine no. AF-1424, Chassis No. AF1ARG28HHN001424, Engine No. 5H4103/2220063. VI. Hydraulic Excavator namely Hyundai Smart Plus R215L, bearing machine no. HYNDN635KE0005352, Engine No. 32D95419054. VII. Hyundai Rock Breaker HDB 215, bearing rock breaker SR No. 4345. VIII. Commercial Vehicle namely Bharat Benz 2826C, bearing registration No. HP-64D-5592, Chassis No. MEC831KBJPP148256, Engine No. 926956D0155003. IX. Commercial Vehicle namely TATA Signa 1923, bearing registration No. HP-63F-5592, Chassis No. MAT778016P2P33496, Engine No. 6B62220D02132M63939534. Vide Tax invoices along with virtual registration certificates dated 18.04.2022, 06.06.2023, 29.12.2023, 31.12.2023, which are Annexures A2 to A5, A11, A16 & A17, A21 & A22 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand promissory notes dated 12.05.2022, 03.10.2022, 23.06.2023 03.01.2024, which are Annexures A8, A13, A19 & A25 to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 12.05.2022, 03.10.2022, 23.06.2023, 03.01.2024, which are Annexures A9, A14, A20 & A26 to this OA; Loan recall Notice dated 19.12.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A27 to this OA and Statement of Accounts along with certificate which are Annexures A28 to A36 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in all the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.1,04,86,432.90, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the

¶22

4 OA/71/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S JAI M P B STONE CRUSHER AND OTHERS

¶23

outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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 A36 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 loan 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.1,04,86,432.90 (Rupees One Crore Four lacs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and paisa Ninety 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.

¶28

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 13.12.2025 till the realization.

¶29

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 assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of

¶30

5 OA/71/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S JAI M P B STONE CRUSHER AND OTHERS

¶31

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 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,04,86,432.90 (Rupees One Crore Four lacs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two and paisa Ninety 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Jai M P B M Stone Crusher and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Jai M P B M Stone Crusher 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

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