Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Baba New Budhdass Screening Plant and Others

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/800/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of Rs 34.79 lakhs. The court reduced claimed interest from 24% to 8% per annum and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 34,79,619.19 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from date of filing; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Baba New Budhdass… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 800/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.07.2026

¶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, 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, Punjab- 141001 through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Baba New Budhdass Screeening Plant through its Proprietor, Village Harnampur, Hadbast no. 320, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab- 140109

¶10

Sh. Harjinder Singh, S/o Sh. Piara Singh, Proprietor M/S Baba New Budhdass Screeening Plant, R/o House no. 17, Village Khadri, Post Office Manakpur Sharif, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 140110

¶11

Sh. Harpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Piara Singh, R/o House no. 17, Village Khadri, Post Office Manakpur Sharif, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 140110

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Chaudhary, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2026)

¶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. 34,79,619.19 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Paise Nineteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to

¶18

2 OA/800/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S BABA NEW BUDHDASS SCREEENING PLANT AND OTHERS

¶19

institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

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 of Rs. 40.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Non-Individual Customer Relation Form dated 25.04.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 40,77,443.00 Lacs for purchase of construction equipment vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 02.06.2025, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their movable asset namely Kobelco SK140 Excavator vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 30.05.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶23

Documents Executed: DP Note and Power of Attorney, both dated 02.06.2025, which are Annexure A5 and A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 28.04.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶24

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs. 34,79,619.19 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶25

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 03.07.2026.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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.

¶28

3 OA/800/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S BABA NEW BUDHDASS SCREEENING PLANT AND OTHERS

¶29

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. 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. 34,79,619.19 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Paise Nineteen Only) from defendants, along with interest, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶30

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 28.04.2026 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 asset, 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 @8.00% 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 Rs.34,79,619.19 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Paise Nineteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% 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 asset of defendant nos. 1 and 2 in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the

¶33

¶34

OA/800/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. M/S BABA NEW BUDHDASS SCREEENING PLANT AND OTHERS

¶35

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 21.07.2026.

¶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.

¶40

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶41

Dated: 06.07.2026

¶42

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Baba New Budhdass Screening Plant and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Baba New Budhdass Screening Plant 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

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Mukhtiar Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Jagjiwan Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S H. K. Foods and Another

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Sandeep Miglani and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Mandeep Singh