Allowed

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

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/1539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a loan of Rs. 43.40 lakhs from three respondents who had failed to repay a KCC facility despite mortgaging property. The court ordered the respondents to pay the principal along with a uniform simple interest of 8% p.a. specified in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 43,40,862.00 with costs and simple interest @8% p.a. from filing date till realization, enforceable under SARFAESI Act.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harwinder Singh and… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1539/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.09.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.12.2025

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (in which ING Vysya Bank Ltd stands amalgamated and the name of IVBL has been changed to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (KMBL) pursuant to the order issued by Reserve Bank of India under sub section 4 of section 44A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation effective from 01.04.2015, as communicated by RBI vide its letter no. DBR.No.PSBD.14527/ 16.01.136/2014-15 March 31-2015 and order issued by RBI vide Letter no. DBR/PSBD/14476/16.01.136/2014-15 dated March 31^st 2015) thus the applicant is a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai and branches at different places one in Samrala, District Ludhiana, through Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Officer of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harwinder Singh S/o Sh. Boota Singh R/o House no. 33, Village Ratipur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana -141114

¶10

Sh. Sukhwant Singh S/o Sh. Boota Singh R/o House no. 8, Village Ratipur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana -141114

¶11

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Boota Singh R/o House no. 29, Village Ratipur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana-141114

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Advocate for Applicant Defendants already ex parte

¶15

¶16

OA NO.1539/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SH. HARWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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.43,40,862.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Officer of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 27.06.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendants approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.39.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 24.02.2014. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.37.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 26.02.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged their immovable property i.e. land measuring 44K-0M situated at Village Ratipur, Hadbast no. 74, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 640 dated 14.07.2014, along with its translation which are Annexure A10 and Annexure A11 to this OA. Documents executed:- Order of amalgamation issued by RBI dated 31.03.2015 which is Annexure A2 to this OA; Annexure B-1,Demand Promissory Note, Take Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letter to be executed by Borrower, Undertaking cum Letter of Authorization for insuring crop and other movable assets, all dated 27.02.2014 which are Annexures A4 to A9 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 08.08.022 along with postal receipts dated 10.08.2022, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶20

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.43,40,862.00 which is recoverable and the defendants were

¶21

¶22

OA NO.1539/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SH. HARWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶23

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.

¶24

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 25.02.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by the learned counsel for applicant through 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 Annexure A1 to A15 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 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.43,40,862.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00% p.a. with half yearly rests from 24.06.2022 till the realization.

¶27

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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶28

¶29

OA NO.1539/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. SH. HARWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶30

years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform 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.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.43,40,862.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.12.2025. 15. 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 .

¶35

Dated:17.12.2025.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Harwinder 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 M/S Green Flames Bioenergy Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Kamaljeet Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ravi sharda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Anmol Tyres and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Khushwinder Singh and Others

Bank of India versus Paramjit Singh and another