Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Mohd Sahil and Another

DRT10 Aug 2026OA/988/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant filed an original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of loan dues. The Tribunal, finding the case uncontroverted, allowed the application. It ordered recovery of the principal with simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate while reserving rights to enforce realization against assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared liable to pay Rs.36,10,469.07 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohd Sahil and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 988/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.06.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.08.2026

¶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, 2nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana141001, through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Mohd. Sahil, S/o Sh. Mohd. Israil, R/o H. No. 94, Village Majra Sarai, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad, Haryana-121105.

¶10

Ms. Rahila, D/o Sh. Noor Mohd., R/o H. No. 94, Village Khatela Sarai, Block 3, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad, Haryana-121105.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 06.08.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.36,10,469.07 (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine 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 Copy of Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.48,90,112.00 vide Individual

¶18

2 OA/988/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. MOHD. SAHIL AND ANOTHER

¶19

Customer Relation Form dated 12.06.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.48,90,112.00 vide Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement along with Schedules dated 03.07.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his vehicle that’s TATA LPT 4830, bearing Registration No. RJ11GC9959, Engine No. B6.7B62300D02142F64388367, Chassis No. MAT566013R1F15262, vide Tax Invoice & Virtual Registration Certificate dated 29.06.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA;

¶21

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 03.07.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Power of Attorney dated 03.07.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 18.05.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Accounts, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶22

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.36,10,469.07 (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Seven Only), 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 06.08.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. 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.

¶23

3 OA/988/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. MOHD. SAHIL AND ANOTHER

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1 approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. Defendants 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.36,10,469.07 (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine 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. 10. 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 15.05.2026 till the realization.

¶25

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 vehicle, 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 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.36,10,469.07 (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise 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 defendant no.1 in execution

¶26

¶27

OA/988/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. MOHD. SAHIL AND ANOTHER

¶28

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.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.08.2026

¶32

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 .

¶33

Dated: 10.08.2026.

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Mohd Sahil and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Mohd Sahil and Another

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 Sh. Kabal Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Muglani enterprises and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S New Khiala Goods Carrier and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbinder Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Guru Nanak Industry and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harcharan Singh Dhaliwal @ Harcharan Singh and Others