KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs SANTAM LOGISTICS PVT LTD on 16 July 2026

t Debts Recovery TribunaFll, Delhi TAl897l2023 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS M/S SA]TATAIT LOGISTICS PvT LTD &ORS Order on IA No.255O/2O21. IA ilo.2737l2o21 & IA ilo.24itol2o24 Reserved on: 04.06.2026 Pronounced on:. 16.07.2026 Present: Ms. Pushplata Choudhary, Counsel for applicant bank. Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Counsel for defendant no.4. Mr. Pranav Chadha, Counsel for defendant no.15. Mr. Armaan Verma, Counsel for defendant no.18. Mr. Verdaan Jain, Counsel for defendant no.19. Mr. Abhishek Mohan, Counsel for defendant no.21. Mr. Gautam Singhal, Counsel for defendant no.36. None for other defendants. Matter is taken through V.C./Hybrid mode.

2. IA no. 243012024 has been filed on behalf of defendant no.36 under Order 1 Rule X read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of name of defendant no.36 from the array of parties.

3. The Ld. Counsel of defendant no.35 has submitted that the defendant no.36 has been arrayed in the list of parties in the matter, by M/s. Satnam Logistics to pass on the burden of his own liability.towards the defendant no.36. The defendant no.36 has no privity with the applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank, as the company had only taken the services of the transpofter M/s. Sanatan V

Logistics as per the agreement/ work contract between both parties. Except the aforementioned agreement/work contra@ there was no other relation between the company and transpofter M/s Satnam Logistics. It is further submitted that the transporter had sent an email dated 21* November 20t7 in the middle of a running contract as the financial condition of the transpofter was poor and the transpofter requested to increase the contract rate which was not permissible as per the existing terms of the contracts. After such a request to increase the contract rate, the transpofl/works contract with M/s. Satnam Logistics was terminated only at the request of the transporter. The defendant no.36 had conveyed to the transporter for its poor service and the likelihood of being blacklisted for the poor seruice and the transporter had been subjected to flnancial penalties in terms of the contracts for the late deliveries. The defendant no.36 on its own tendered the termination of the contract and settled all the dues vide its letters/emails wherein the entire account had been settled as per the satisfaction of the transpofter. It is submitted that defendant no.36 made the last and final payment to the transpofter as per the final ledger of 18-19 bearing the voucher number 24537 datd 11.10.2018. Moreover, the entire accounts have been verified by the logistics transpoftation officer Mr. Gaurav Bhatia and the logistics head of department Ms. Kamal Gupta and the finance depaftment officer Ms. Indu. The defendant no.36 had reconciled the entire,accounts with the transporter and shared the ledger for the F.Y.I6-L7, 77-t8, and 18-19, wherein the adjustments of all the debit notes and all the payments were confirmed by the transpofter. It is further submitted that the only reason why defendant no.36 has been impleaded is that the. defg"ldant no.36 and the e0

transpofter M/S Satnam Logistics had exchanged few financial transactions for the services availed by the defendant no.36. In the present case, the defendant no.36 has no relations other than the Wor(service Contract with the defendant no.U M/s. Satnam Logistics. The defendant no. 1/ Satnam l-ogistics had shown their incapability to complete the contract due to their poor financial condition after which defendant no.36 and defendant no.1 terminated the contract and setued all the dueg thereafter no work/ seruices of the transpofter M/s Satnam were availed by the defendant no.36. It is submitted that there is not even a single substantive averment against the defendant no.35, which pinpoints as to exactly what role defendant no.36 has played in causing any alleged wrongdoing against the applicant. Further, there is no prayer made against the defendant no.36. It is submitted that the defendant no.36 is neither: a necessary pafi nor a proper party, in as much as, no relief whatsoever can be passed against the defendant no.36. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant no.36 cannot be held responsible for any alleged wrongdoing. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may allow the present application and delete the name of the company i.e., defendant no. 35, M/s Asahi India Glass Limited from the array of parties.

4. The Ld. Counsel of applicant bank has filed reply to IA. It is submitted that as per the conditions of the deed of hypothecation dated 27.06.2018 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the applicant bank, the receivables from the debtors of defendant no.1 were required to be routed through the bank account maintained by defendant no.l with the applicant ban( and therefore defendant no.36 ,t0 Anecessary and proper party to the present proceedings. It is submifted that as per details of debtors furnished by the defendant no.l to 3 to the applicant bank, the amount payable by the defendant no.35 is k.l,OO,4Z,7Ogf. Therefore, defendant no.36 is made party to the present OA based on the security interest created over receivables/book debts of defendant no.1. It is further submitted that the applicant bank has no knowledge of and can neither confirm nor deny the alleged transactions claimed by defendant no.36 with defendant no.1. However, it is submitted that as per the list of debtors furnished by defendant nos.l to 3 to the applicant bank vide email dated 22.01.2020, defendant no.36 was liable to pay an amount of Rs.t,00,42,7081- to defendant no.1. It is on the basis of the said admitted information that defendant no.36 is made a party in the present proceedings for recovery of the applicant banKs legitimate dues. It is submitted that the presence of defendant no.36 in the present proceedings is necessitated for the purpose of issuance of garnishee directiong as defendant no.36 is an admitted debtor of defendant no.1 and the amounts payable by it form part of the hypothecated receivables charged in favour of the applicant bank. It is submitted the applicant bank has sought issuance of garnishee orders against defendant no.4 to defendant no.36, being debtors of defendant no.l, directing them to make payment of all amounts due and payable to defendant no.1 into the designated account maintained with the applicant bank. In view of the nature of relief sought, Respondent No.36 is a necessary and proper party, and its presence is essential for effective adjudication and final disposal of the present OA. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may dismiss the present application filed by the defendant no.36 for deletion from the array of pafties and t0

allow the prayers and interim relief as sought by the applicant bank in the Original Application and decree the O.A. in its favor and against the defendanb including defendant no. 36.

5. IA no. 255012027 has been filed on behalf of defendant no.4 under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act, 1993, read with Rule 18 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure for seeking deletion/striking off ftom the array of parties;

6. The Ld. Counsel of defendant no.4 has submitted that the instant application seeking deletion or striking off from the array of parties is being filed by defendant no.4 who is indubitably not a borrower/guarantor/mortgagor of the applicant bank but has been arrayed, in the OA, as an alleged debtor of the principal borrower i.e., defendant no.1. There is no privity or a relationship recognizable by law between the bank and defendant no.4. It is further submitted that barring a bald, baseless and unsuppofted averment, in the OA, which is devoid of material particulars, that defendant no.4 is a debtor of defendant no.1 with an outstanding of Rs.6.90 lacs, there is not even an iota of substance in the instant OA explaining the nature of claim of defendant no.1 against defendant no.4 or explaining as to how the debt becomes due to defendant no.1 and in turn to the bank. The Original application, filed by the bank, is bereft of all essential avermentsffactual narration required to establish a case against defendant no.4 and is absolutely silent on the cause of action accruing to defendant no.l, and in turn to applicant bank, to make a claim against defendant no.4. The OA is not accompanied with an annexure/document reflecting the indebtedn 5g of defendant no.4 to defendant no.1. The applicant bank has miserably failed to establish a case in order to make recovery from defendant no.4. It is further submitted that the answering defendant has cleared all the outstanding dues of defendant no.1 on August 28, 2020 itself and currenUy neither any outstanding amount is due or owed by defendant no.4 nor there is any further business transaction or contractual relationship between defendant no.4 and defendant no. 1 and therefore, the question of paying the outstanding amount to defendant no.1 or settling the accounts does not arise. It is further submitted that instant OA is also not maintainable for the reason that this Hon'ble Tribunal will not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide a dispute between defendant no.4 and defendant no.1. Even if the applicant bank has subsumed the debts the defendant no.1, that would not entitle the applicant bank to drag the debtor of defendant no.1 to a forum of applicant's choice or convenience. It is added that neither the defendant no.4 carries on its business within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Tribunal nor has any cause of action, either in whole or in part, arisen within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that the OA of the bank is causing, to defendant no.4, unnecessary and avoidable embarrassment of facing a frivolous proceeding and therefore defendant no.4 is making the prayer of deletion in the instant application. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may delete or strike off the name of defendant no.4 i.e., M/s Aafti Industries Ltd. from the array of pafties and impose cost upon the applicant bank i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for abusing the process of law by misjoinder of party and causing unnecessary embarrassment, to the defendant no.4, of facing vexatious trial.

7. The Ld. C-ounsel of applicant bank has filed repty to IA. It is submitted that as per the details of debtors furnished by the defendant no.l to 3 to the applicant bank, the amount payable by the defendant no.4 i.e., Aafti Industries Ltd is Rs.6,90,000/-, vide email dated 22.01.2020 and since the said receivable form part of the hypothecated book debb charged in favour of the applicant bank, that defendant no.4 is a party in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the deed of hypothecation dated 27.O6.ZOL9 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the applicant ban( all amounts receivable by defendant no.1 from its debtors were required to be routed through the bank account maintained by defendant no.1 with the applicant bank. In view of the specific interim reliefs sought including issuance of garnishee directions, defendant no.4 is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication and final disposal of the present OA. B. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present Original Application. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present application filed by the defendant no.4 for deletion from the array of pafties and allow the prayers and interim relief as sought by the applicant bank in the Original Application and allow the O.A. in its favor and against the defendants including defendant no. 4 and other defendants.

8. IA no. 27371202L has been filed on behalf of defendant no.18/ Jesons Industries Ltd under Rule 18 of the DRT (Procedure) Rule, 1993 for deletion from array of lication. parties of original app 5ei

The Ld. Counsel of defendant no.lgflesons Industries Ltd has submitted that the applicant had availed the seryices of the defendant no.1 for transportaUon of goods manufactural/ processed by the applicant. However, since 28.07.2017, the applicant had dis-continued availing seryice of the defendant no.1. It is further submitted that as per chart forming part of the original application at pages 34135, it reflects an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- due from defendant no.1g to the defendant no.1. However, it is pointed out that all payments have been made to the defendant no.1 on or before 28.07.2017 and no amount is due and payable by the defendant no.18. It is submitted that the defendant no.18 does not owe any amount to defendant no.l and therefore, defendant no.18 is not a necessary party in the original application and should be deleted from array of pafties in the present original application. It is prayed that this Hontle Tribunal may pass an order allowing the present application for deletion of the defendant no.18 from array of parties and from the original application in the interest of justice.

10. The Ld. Counsel of applicant bank has filed reply to IA. It is submitted that it is submitted that the applicant bank has no knowledge and can neither confirm the alleged transactions/payments made by the defendant no. 18 to the defendant no. 1. It is fufther submitted that as per the information of list of debtors given by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to the applicant bank, the defendant no. 18 owes an amount to the tune of Rs.8,20,000/-. It is submitted that it is on the basis of the said information given by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 that the defendant no.lB has been impleaded by the applicant bank in the present proceedings in orda!-Sver its legitimate er0

dues. It is submitted that in light of the above said, the defendant no.18 has been righUy impleaded as a necessary and proper party. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hontle Tribunal may dismiss the present application filed by the defendant no.18 for deletion from the array of parties and allow the prayers and interim relief as sought by the applicant bank in the Original Application and decree the O.A. in its favor and against the defendant no. 18 and other defendants.

11. Heard the Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record. L2. The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the applicant is that the applican{ defendant no.4, 18 & 36 are not the debtor of the applicant bank and are not liable to pay any dues to the applicant bank. It is submifted that the defendant no.1 is a transport company and M/s Satnam Logistics has taken loan from the applicant bank and has made a default in making payment and therefore, the applicant bank has filed a recovery suit against the defendants. It is submitted that the defendant no.4, 18 & 36 have submitted that they have certain contracts with the defendant no.I and which has been terminated and all paymenb has already been settled with defendant no.1. It is submitted that they are not liable to pay any dues to the defendant no.1 and thereforg they cannot be continued to be a party in the OA. It is submitted that no relief has been sought against the defendants and therefore, the defendants/applicants are liable to be deleted from the array of the parties.

13. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the applicant bank has submitted that the.jlgf.endant no.l has taken -_s0 - l0 loan of Rs.1,350 Lacs from the applicant bank and has mortgaged the property owned by Shri Kushal Raj Singh, propetty owned by Santam Logistics M.Ltd. and has also executed collateral security of lien on fixed deposit of Rs.1.50 Crores in the name of Santam Logistics M.Ltd. and hypothecation of commercial vehicle owned by defendant no.1. It is submitted that accordingly of deed of hypothecation it was duly agreed that all book debts, monies, claims, demand, contracts, engagemen! securities operating cash flow, receivables and all other current assets commissions and revenue of the borrower both present and future are charged by way of hypothecation by the borrower company in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant no.l also provided the list of debtor through e.mail dated 22.01.2020.ltis submitted that the defendants are the debtors ofthe borrower. It is fufther submitted that all receivables from debtors are to be routed by the defendant no.I through the bank account maintained by defendant no.1. Therefore, the defendants are necessary party as the amount due from the defendants should be routed through the account maintained by the defendant no. 1 with applicant bank. It is submitted that there is a due of Rs.1,00,42,7081- in favour of the defendant no.l. Therefore, it is submitted that the defendants are necessary party. t4. From perusal of the above pleadings it is clear that there is privity of contract between the applicant and the defendant no.4,18 & 36. No documents of moftgage or surety has been created by these defendants. Only fact is that the defendant no.1 has given the list of debtors from whom the defendant no.1 has to get ceftain amounts. It is the claim of the applicant that all amounts that are to be received from the debtors of the defendant no.l has to be routed through the account of defendant no.l ----c-+ ep ll maintained with applicant bank. Therefore, these defendants are necessary party. It is also claimed that defendant no.1 has failed to comply the terms of the contract and has not routed the amount through the account maintain with the applicant bank. If it is so, even then the defendant no.4,18 & 36 cannot be held liable. It is the duty of the defendant no.l to comply the terms of the contract. If the defendant no.l has not mmflied the terms of the mntract, the applicant bank has full right to proceed against the defendant no.l. But the applicant bank cannot proceed against the strangers who are merely debtors of the borrower i.e. defendant no.l. An effective decree can be passed against the defendant no.1 without impleading defendant no.4,18 & 36. No recovery ceftificate can be passed against these defendants. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant no. 4, 18 & 36 are not necessary pafi and there is misjoinder of parties.

15. In the light of the above, the IA No.2550/2021, IA No.273712021 & IA No.243012024 are liable to be allowed. ORI'ER The IA No.255012027, IA No.273712021 & IA No.243012024 are allowed. The defendant no.4, 18 & 36 are deleted from array of the parties. Applicant bank is directed to file amended memo of parties. List the matter on t6.09.2026 before Registrar for completion of pleadings. e$ t5 ,L Dated: 16.07.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi ( m GI)