Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises and Others

DRT6 Aug 2026OA/843/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of a term loan of Rs. 1,60,41,674.91 against M/s Mahadev Enterprises and guarantors, modifying the interest rate to 8% p.a. and authorizing recovery from hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,60,41,674.91 plus interest at 8% p.a. declared; Recovery Certificate issued; parties directed to Recovery Officer on 21.08.2026.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Mahadev… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.843/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.08.2026

¶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

M/s Mahadev Enterprises through its Proprietor Sh. Dilawar, Old

¶10

Gate Thermal Colony, Near Assan Road, District Panipat, Haryana - 132103.

¶11

Sh. Dilawar S/o Sh. Rohtash, Proprietor M/s Mahadev Enterprises, R/o Village Begampur Madlauda Waisar (46), District Panipat, Haryana - 132103.

¶12

Smt. Pankaj W/o Sh. Dilawar, R/o Village Begampur Madlauda Waisar (46), District Panipat, Haryana - 132103.

¶13

…….. Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Manav Singal, Advocate for the applicant

¶16

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 04.08.2026).

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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.1,60,41,674.91 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to

¶19

2 OA NO.843/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

¶20

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

¶21

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 Five units of Commercial Vehicles and its bodies of Rs.2,18,58,364.00 vide Non Individual Customer Relation Form dated 22.05.2023, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities for purchase of Five units of Commercial Vehicles and its bodies of Rs.2,18,58,364.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 30.05.2023, which is Annexure A13 to this O A. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 2 hypothecated its movable assets i.e., (i) Commercial Vehicle namely TATA SIGNA 5530 and its body bearing Registration No. HR67D3803, Chassis No. MAT828060P2B05570, Engine No. B6.7B6A250D02132B64273760 vide Tax Invoices dated 30.04.2023, 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A2 & A7 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 05.08.2026 vide Dairy No. 14577.

¶22

(ii) Commercial Vehicle namely TATA SIGNA 5530 and its body bearing Registration No. HR67D3603, Chassis No. MAT828048PAD05538, Engine No. 32D95418203 vide Tax Invoices dated 30.04.2023, 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A3 & A8 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 05.08.2026 vide Dairy No. 14577. (iii) Commercial Vehicle namely TATA SIGNA 5530 and its body bearing Registration No. HR67D6003, Chassis No. MAT828048PAD05483, Engine No. 32D95418075 vide Tax Invoice dated 30.04.2023, 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A4 & A9 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 05.08.2026 vide Dairy No. 14577.

¶23

3 OA NO.843/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

¶24

(iv) Commercial Vehicle namely TATA SIGNA 5530 and its body bearing Registration No. HR67D8703, Chassis No. MAT828048P2D10803, Engine No. B6.7B62300D02132D64288217 vide Tax Invoice dated 30.04.2023, 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A5 & A10 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 05.08.2026 vide Dairy No. 14577.

¶25

(v) Commercial Vehicle namely TATA SIGNA 5530 and its body bearing Registration No. HR67D8803, Chassis No. MAT828048PAD05479, Engine No. 32D95418223 vide Tax Invoice dated 30.04.2023, 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A6 & A11 to this OA and Virtual Registration Certificate filed on 05.08.2026 vide Dairy No. 14577.

¶26

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, both dated 30.05.2023 which are Annexures A14 & A15 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 24.05.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificates, which are Annexures A17 to A26 to this OA.

¶27

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.1,60,41,674.91, 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 04.08.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶29

4 OA NO.843/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

¶30

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A26 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.1,60,41,674.91 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety One 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.

¶31

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 13.05.2025 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 hypothecated vehicles, 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.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.1,60,41,674.91 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety One Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan

¶34

5 OA NO.843/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

¶35

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 i n 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 21.08.2026.

¶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.

¶40

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 06.08.2026

¶41

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶42

Presiding Officer,

¶43

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Parkash and Co. and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Himanshu Fabrics and Others

Shubchintak versus Idfc First Bank Ltd. and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Malhotra Cycle Industries and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmeet Singh Chahal

Union Bank of India versus M/S Radhe Dairy Farm and Another