Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhraj Singh and Others

DRT8 Jul 2025OA/1332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-III allowed the bank applicant's original application for recovery of Rs.82.42 crores from the defendant borrowers. The Tribunal approved recovery of the principal debt and reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Principal of Rs.82,42,426.23 plus costs and interest at 8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate and authorization for sale of mortgaged properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1332/2022 PRESIDED OVER BYMRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.07.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 09.07.2025

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a banking company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and licensed under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 having its Registered Office at 27BKC, C 27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 and the successor to ING Vyasa Bank under the Amalgamation scheme dated 01.04.2015, sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 having its branches all Over India including its Branch at SCO-153-154-155, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representatives Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sukhraj Singh S/o Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o House No.110, Village Kirtowal Khurd, Kirtowal B.O., Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran-143412.

¶9

Narinder Kaur W/o Sh. Sukhraj Singh R/o House No.110, Village Kirtowal Khurd, Kirtowal B.O., Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran-143412.

¶10

Amrik Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh R/o Khemkaran Road, L.M. Bhullar Petrol Pump, Amritsar-143001.

¶11

2^nd address: 76/2 Khemkaran Road, Ward No.2, Patti, Tarn Taran, Punjab-143416.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Satwinder Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sameer Mahajan, Advocate for Applicant Defendants are ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial

¶17

¶18

OA NO.1332-2022

¶19

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SUKHRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

Institutions Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.82,42,426.23p (Rupees Eighty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six & Twenty Three Paise only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Representatives o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 27.06.2020, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.70.00.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.65.00 Lacs vide Loan agreement and ancillary document dated 24.08.2013 & 27.08.2013, which are Annexures A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶23

Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. total land measuring 88K-00M detailed as: a. land measuring 80K-00M situated at Village Kirtowal/189, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab b. l and measuring 0K-08M situated at Village Jindanwala/178, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab vide Registered Mortgaged Deed bearing vasika no.2 546 dated 24.09.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: - Amalgamation of ING Vyasa Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Loan recall notice dated 16.05.2022 & 18.05.2022, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which are Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶24

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.82,42,426.23p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶25

3 OA NO.1332-2022

¶26

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SUKHRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

¶27

amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.02.2024.

¶29

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, authorized representatives, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. 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 ) along with interest from the defendants, Jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶31

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 14.05.2022 till the realization.

¶32

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 mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while

¶33

4 OA NO.1332-2022

¶34

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SUKHRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%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.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.82,42,426.23p (Rupees Eighty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six & Twenty Three Paise only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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/mortgaged properties of the defendants 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 attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 29.07.2025.

¶38

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.

¶39

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶40

Dated: 09.07.2025.

¶41

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhraj Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhraj Singh 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

State Bank of India versus Budh Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harpal Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Jagjit Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Tahil Singh

State Bank of India versus Jaswant Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Mohan Singh and Another