Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Dhillion Tour and Travels and Others

DRT20 Jul 2026OA/812/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed applicant bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 42.45 lacs. Tribunal reduced claimed pendente lite interest from 24% to 8% p.a. and directed issuance of recovery certificate allowing sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Ordered recovery of Rs. 42,45,710.65 with 8% p.a. interest. Issued Recovery Certificate. Liberty to enforce via sale of hypothecated vehicles or attachment of personal assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Dhillion Tour and… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.812/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.07.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051, and Branch Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank SCO.131-132-133, Second Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana - 141001 through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Dhillon Tour & Travels through its Proprietor Sh. Khushpreet Singh, Opposite Nagar Panchayat, Shop No. 13, Gurudwara Road, Bhikhi, Mansa – 151504.

¶10

Sh. Khushpreet Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, R/o Near Chawla High School, Ward No. 3, Guru Nanak Basti, Bhikhi, District Mansa – 151504.

¶11

Sh. Prem Singh, R/o H No. 503 Near Chawla Guru Nanak Basti, Ward No. 3, Bhikhi, Mansa – 151504.

¶12

…….. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 07.07.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.42,45,710.65 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and Paise Sixty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent

¶17

2 OA NO.812/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S DHILLON TOUR AND TRAVELS AND OTHERS

¶18

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

¶19

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 a pproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facilities for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles of Rs.39,52,004.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form and Individual Customer Relation Forms, which are Annexures A2 to A5 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 in his individual capacity a pproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facilities for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles of Rs.40,85,200.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles of Rs.39,52,004.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.12.2022, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of two units of commercial vehicles of Rs.40,85,200.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.04.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated its movable assets i.e., (i) CB SML ISUZU S7 42 PLUS 1 BUS, bearing Registration No. PB13BQ9825, Chassis No. MBUZT54XGN0288724, Engine No. SLT6GN280411 vide Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 14.07.2026, in compliance of order dated 09.07.2026. (ii) SML SARTAJ BUS, bearing Registration No. PB13BT9225, Chassis No. MBUWEL4XAL0309897, Engine No. SLT6AL300854 vide Tax Invoice dated 28.03.20204, which is Annexure A11(Colly) to this OA

¶21

3 OA NO.812/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S DHILLON TOUR AND TRAVELS AND OTHERS

¶22

and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 14.07.2026, in compliance of order dated 09.07.2026.

¶23

(iii) SML SARTAJ BUS, bearing Registration No. PB13BT9425, Chassis No. MBUWEL4XAL0309042, Engine No. SLT6MM299596 vide Tax Invoice dated 28.03.20204, which is Annexure A11(Colly) to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 14.07.2026, in compliance of order dated 09.07.2026.

¶24

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Notes, dated 05.12.2022, 05.04.2024, which are Annexures A7 & A10 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 18.04.2026, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A15 to A18 to this OA.

¶25

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.42,45,710.65, 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.

¶26

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 07.07.2026.

¶27

Thereafter, arguments were heard on 08.07.2026 and case was posted for final order.

¶28

Today, Sh. Rishab Kumar Jain, Advocate filed his Memo of Appearance on behalf of the defendants vide dairy no. 13160. Sh. Rishab Kumar Jain & Sh. Kawaljit Singh, Advocates filed their Power of Attorney on behalf of the defendants vide dairy no. 13231. Sh. Rishab Kumar Jain, Advocate filed an IA no. 1345/2026 for setting aside ex party order dated 07.07.2026. The above IA was heard and vide separate order, the IA was dismissed today. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶29

4 OA NO.812/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S DHILLON TOUR AND TRAVELS AND OTHERS

¶30

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶31

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing 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 A18 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 a pproached applicant for availing of 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.42,45,710.65 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and Paise Sixty Five 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.

¶32

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 all the loan accounts from 13.04.2026 till the realization.

¶33

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 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 accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

5 OA NO.812/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S DHILLON TOUR AND TRAVELS AND OTHERS

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.42,45,710.65 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and Paise Sixty Five Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in 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 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.

¶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 04.08.2026.

¶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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 20.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Dhillion Tour and Travels and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Dhillion Tour and Travels 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Chamkaur Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Mamta Rani

State Bank of India versus Gurdeep Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajinder Pandey and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S New Paradise Public Sen Sec School and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohamad Shokeen and Another