KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs SHUKANTLA DEVI YADAV on 13 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 20.02.20L9 through Mr. KumariJyoti, Authorized Representative of the applicant ban( under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendanb for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,37,090.01 together with cost, charges and pendenteltite and future interest @ 18.00o/o from 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.1 being the borrower and defendant no.2 being the guarantor, the applicant bank sanctioned a Commercial Vehicle Loan Facility of Rs.19,40,4LL1- for purchase a Heavy Commercial Vehicle TATA Motors Ltd- CB_ TATA LPS 4018 CAB Chassis Trailer bearing Chassis no. MAT447234G3K22777, Engine No. B591803261J63547349 and Registration No.HR 55 AA 4939. I

TANO. 1479 of 2023

3. It is fufther 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. The applicant bank serued a loan recall notice dated 24.L2.20L8 to the defendants but failed to recover the sameThus, the present O'A'ff'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendants faited to put appearance at all. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 04'02'2025'

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Kumari Jyoti, AR of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-5, 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'

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 filed by the applicant bank documents. based upon the written/Printed In the light of the above discussions, the present T'A'

ORDER

deserves to be allowed. o --.-2-

TA NO. 1479 of 2023

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, a sum of Rs.10,37,090.01 along with cost, expenses and interest @9.51olo 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 shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 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.

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on t4.t2'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. lo * Date : 13.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR oGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. SD l3 PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi lo (SUSHIL KUMAR Date : 13.10.2026 cl6 -_.=.-.4-...,?.