Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Surender and Others

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application under DRBA, the Tribunal upheld the bank's claim for loan recovery after finding the defendants failed to repay a term loan for a commercial vehicle. The court allowed the application, set uniform interest at 8% p.a., and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendants directed to pay Rs.21,31,469.47 with interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Surender and Others — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.819/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.06.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.03.2026

¶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 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

Sh. Surender S/o Sh. Sukhbir, R/o Village Mahawati Mahoti (89), Tehsil & District Panipat, Haryana-132102

¶10

Smt. Manisha W/o Sh. Surender, R/o Village Mahawati Mahoti (89), Tehsil & District Panipat, Haryana-132102

¶11

Sh. Rameshwar S/o Sh. Rishipal, R/o Village Mahawati Mahoti (89), Tehsil & District Panipat, Haryana-132102

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2026

¶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.21,31,469.47 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Forty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. 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.

¶18

¶19

OA NO. 819/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SURENDER AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 26.12 Lacs for purchase of Commercial Vehicle BHARAT BENZ 1917R vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 04.07.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Limit of Rs.27,67,131.00 and terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants. Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.05.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated Commercial Vehicle BHARAT BENZ 1917R BSVI-3 bearing Engine No. 400932D0056468, Chasis No. MEC7784CEPP066458. Tax Invoice dated 28.06.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Virtual Registration Certificate of Vehicle filed on 07.03.2026 vide diary no. 3974 in compliance to order dated 07.02.2026.

¶23

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note dated 05.07.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Loan recall notice dated 24.05.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Accounts along with certificate, 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.21,31,469.47 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.

¶25

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 07.03.2026.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

OA NO. 819/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SURENDER AND OTHERS

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him 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, 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.21,31,469.47 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Forty Seven Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 13.05.2025 till the realization.

¶32

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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%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.

¶33

¶34

OA NO. 819/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SURENDER AND OTHERS

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,31,469.47 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Forty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 vehicle 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.

¶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 15.04.2026.

¶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: 23.03.2026

¶42

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶43

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Surender and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Surender 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

Canara Bank versus Sh. Bahadur Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhchain Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S M M Cotton Factory and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sanjeev Traders and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Iqbal Singh and Another