KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK vs VENOGOPAL NANDLAL DHOOT on 12 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 07'03'2019 through Shri' Dipanshu Singh, Manager - Legal of the applicant ban( under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs'24'50'74'679'40 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @Z4o/ofrom date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a Personal Loan Facility of Rs'1700'00 Lacs for a maximum tenor of 36 months, vide sanction letter dated 04.08.2016. The defeTgI.2 guarantor' The Kouk Mahindra Bank Umited Vs.

1. VenugoPal Nandlal Dhoot

2. Mr. PradiPkumar Nandlal Dhoot -Applicant bank

- Defendang so

loaning documents on 04.08.2016, 23'08'2016 and 19'07'2016'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts' The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters' but there was no response from the defendants' Hence' the account was classified as NPA dated 29'07'2017' The applicant bank served a recall notice dated 08'02'2019 to the defendants but failed to recover'the same Thus' the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to filed evidence' Thereafter' the defendants failed to put appearance in the matter' Accordingly' the TANO. 1334of2022 defendants executed defendants were t8.02.2026.

all necessary proceeded against exParte on

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavitofMr.DipanshuSingh,Manager-Legalofthe applicant bank as Paper No'1 to Paper No'108' which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount. e9

TANO. 1334 of 2022

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts' The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents fited by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions' the present T'A' deserves to be allowed'

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos'l and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today' asurhofRs.24,50,74$79'4Oalongwithcost'expenses and interest @13.75olo from the date of filing of this O'A' which has become T.A till the date of realization'

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shalt be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l and 2'

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi'

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free coPY of the order and send the same to both the Parties. SP

TANO. 1334 of 2022

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t4'12'2026' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' t90 w Date : 12.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed' dated and pronounced in oPen court' e0 -----pl lo i.6 Date : 12.10.2026 SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOG PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DCIhi t D (