Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjay Roadlines and Others

DRT20 May 2026OA/90/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the bank for recovery of a term loan. It adjusted the claimed interest rate from 24% p.a. to 8% p.a. and directed recovery from the hypothecated vehicle or personal assets of the guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.27,05,565.07 with costs, current and future simple interest @8% p.a. until realization. Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Roadlines and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.90/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.05.2026

¶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 Sanjay Roadlines, through its Proprietor, Shop No.252, Sector-25, 2^nd Floor, Transport Nagar, HUDA, Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat, Haryana-132103

¶10

Sh. Sanjay son of Sh. Krishan Kumar, Proprietor M/s Sanjay Roadlines, R/o Ward No. 17, Gali No. 13B, Mukhija Colony, Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat, Haryana-132103

¶11

Sh. Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Munshi Ram, R/o Ward No. 17, Gali No. 13B, Mukhija Colony, Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat, Haryana-132103

¶12

……..Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Applicant

¶15

Sh. Vinay Kumar Arya, Advocate for Defendants (through VC)

¶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.27,05,565.07 (Rupees

¶18

2 OA/90/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. M/S SANJAY ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶19

Twenty Seven Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and Paise 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.

¶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.37 Lacs for purchase of Commercial Vehicle vide NonIndividual Customer Relation Form dated 03.11.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.39,39,185.00 (Term Loan of Rs.37,37,926.00 for Commercial Vehicle and Term Loan of Rs.2,01,259.00 for its body) and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 05.11.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no.1 through its Proprietor hypothecated its Commercial Vehicle i.e. TATA LPT 3523 BS VI, Bearing Registration No. RJ14GQ8701, Engine No.B5.6B62220D02132H63933995, Chassis No. MAT777306P1H23519. Tax Invoice dated 31.10.2023, along with Virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 05.11.2023, which is Annexures A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney which is Annexures A6 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 23.12.2025, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificate, which are Annexures A8 and A9 to this OA.

¶23

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.27,05,565.07, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶24

3 OA/90/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. M/S SANJAY ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶25

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 and after service of summons, Sh. Vinay Kumar Arya, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants. Since, no WS was filed by defendants within stipulated period, the opportunity to file WS by defendants was closed and defense was struck off vide order dated 15.05.2026. After hearing of arguments and fixing date for final order, an IA No. 942/2026 was filed by learned counsel for defendants today for recalling the order dated 15.05.2026. This IA was heard today and vide separate order of even date, this IA 942/2026 was dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶29

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.

¶30

It was argued by learned counsel for defendants through video conferencing that conversation regarding settlement is going on between parties.

¶31

However, the learned counsel for applicant submitted that no conversation is going on regarding settlement.

¶32

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the 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. The defendants 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,

¶33

4 OA/90/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. M/S SANJAY ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶34

it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,05,565.07 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and Paise 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 amount.

¶35

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 10.12.2025 till the realization.

¶36

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 @08.00% p.a. in both 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.

¶37

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.27,05,565.07 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and Paise Seven Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both 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 the 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

¶38

5 OA/90/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. M/S SANJAY ROADLINES AND OTHERS

¶39

attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶40

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶43

Tribunal on 11.06.2026.

¶44

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to

¶45

defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶46

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶47

Dated: 20.05.2026.

¶48

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶49

Presiding Officer,

¶50

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjay Roadlines and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sanjay Roadlines 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Max Solutions

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gursharan Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Kuldeep Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Beant Singh and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Ms Neeraj Goyal and Company and Others