Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajinder Pandey and Another

DRT20 Jul 2026OA/816/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd against two defendants for an outstanding term loan of Rs. 25,48,980.33. The court granted simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed recovery from the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,48,980.33 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing; issuance of Recovery Certificate; recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicle if dues remain unsatisfied.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajinder Pandey… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.816/2026

¶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

Sh. Rajinder Pandey S/o Sh. Durga Parsad Pandey, R/o Ward No 73, Street No 16, Basant Nagar, Lohara Millergang, Ludhiana141003.

¶10

Sh. Sanjay Tiwari S/o Sh. Ganga Sagar Tiwari, R/o Phase 5, Near N.S. Coal Traders, Opposite Har Lal Dharam Kanda, Dhandari Station Road Focal Point, Ludhiana – 141010.

¶11

…….. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

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

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.25,48,980.33 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty and Paise Thirty Three Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.816/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. RAJINDER PANDEY AND ANOTHER

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facilities for purchase of commercial vehicle and its body of Rs.40,00,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Forms, dated 29.12.2023, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of commercial vehicle and its body of Rs.36,04,200.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.01.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his movable asset i.e., Mahindra Blazo 55 TR, bearing Registration No. PB10JJ2576, Chassis No. MA1UAARXFP6J77153, Engine No. PGPZH17407 vide Tax Invoice dated 30.12.2023, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 14.07.2026, in compliance of order dated 09.07.2026. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, dated 05.01.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 18.04.2026, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A9 to A11 to this OA.

¶19

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.25,48,980.33, 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. 6. 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. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed.

¶20

3 OA NO.816/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. RAJINDER PANDEY AND ANOTHER

¶21

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶22

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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 a pproached applicant for availing of loan facilities which were granted to him, defendant no. 2 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.25,48,980.33 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty and Paise Thirty Three 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 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.

¶25

4 OA NO.816/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. RAJINDER PANDEY AND ANOTHER

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.25,48,980.33 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty and Paise Thirty Three 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 vehicle 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.

¶27

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 04.08.2026. 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: 20.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajinder Pandey and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajinder Pandey and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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 M/S New Paradise Public Sen Sec School and Others

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohamad Shokeen and Another