Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Harjit Singh

DRT1 Nov 2025OA/1641/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of Rs.70,93,194/- with interest against three respondents. The execution was directed against mortgaged and personal properties, and parties were summoned for distribution of sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.70,93,194/- with interest allowed. Recovery Certificate issued. Parties directed to appear on 08.12.2025 for distribution of sale proceeds.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harjit Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1641/2022 Date of Institution: 05.08.2022 Date of Decision: 01.11.2025

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (erstwhile ING Vyasa Bank Limited) having its branches all over India and a branch at Amritsar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Harjit Singh s/o Sh. Karnail Singh, r/o H.No.293, Main Road, Navi Abadi, Karampura, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar, Punjab.

¶8

Kirpal Singh s/o Sh. Karnail Singh, r/o H.No.611, New Abadi, Faizpura, Amritsar, Punjab.

¶9

Satinder Pal Singh s/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, r/o H.No.13, Nirankari Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 12.05.2023 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.70,93,194/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.08.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.70,93,194/- with interest against Sh. Harjit Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 12.03.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.70.00 Lacs to defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests. The defendants were sent recall notice on 17.05.2022. On 13.05.2022, a sum of Rs.70,93,194/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

¶18

On 17.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 12.05.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-19. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.70.00 Lacs and on 13.05.2022, a sum of Rs.70,93,194/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.70,93,194/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs Ninety Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four Only) with interest @12% per annum with halfyearly rests from 05.08.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 01.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶19

MANOJ KALRA

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Harjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Harjit Singh

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Radhakrishna Automobiles Rep by Its Prop Smt.G. Suguna

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Thangamma M G

State Bank of India versus M/S Machinesonhire

Canara Bank versus Shri Harpal Singh

Idbi Bank versus Amrik Kaur

Ms a D Textile Proprietorship firm of the Shri Anil Prakash Patel versus Tjsb Sahakari Bank