Allowed

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

DRT19 Dec 2025OA/1829/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of a loan amount due from borrowers and guarantors. The court decreed the principal sum with reduced simple interest and authorized recovery via hypothecated/sale of assets under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs. 33,99,908.93 with simple interest at 8% p.a. and direction to enforce via sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1829/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 19.12.2025

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act V of 1970 having its registered office at 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and having one of its branch office at SCO No.153-155, Sector-9C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurmit Singh Son of Sh. Shamsher Singh, R/o House no.1,

¶10

Sampurangarh, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab.

¶11

Sh. Ravinder Singh Son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, R/o House no.1, Sampurangarh, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab.

¶12

Sh. Baljinder Singh Son of Sh. Hardam Singh, R/o House No.63, Village Roharjagir, Tehsil and Distinct Patiala, Punjab.

¶13

Sh. Nirmal Singh Son of Sh. Shamsher Singh, R/o

¶14

Sampurangarh, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab.

¶15

………. Defendants

¶16

Advocates:

¶17

Argued by Sh. Sourav Sihota, Advocate proxy for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendants already ex-parte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.33,99,908.93 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eight & Paise Ninety Three only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Legal Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 27.06.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

¶21

OA NO.1829/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 14.08.2012. Defendant nos. 3 & 4 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Credit arrangement letter dated 21.08.2012, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 6 acres situated at Village Sampurangarh, Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, Patiala, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 871 dated 23.08.2012, along with its translation, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: Amalgamation order dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Agreement BI, DPN, Take Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation agreement, Guarantee bond, Consent letter by borrower, Consent letter by Guarantor, Undertaking, all dated 23.08.2012, which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; Legal notice dated 22.07.2022, along with postal receipts dated 25.07.2022, which are Annexures A13 to A17 to this OA and Statement of Account along with certificate & interest chart, which are Annexures A18 to A20 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.33,99,908.93, which is recoverable and the defendants were 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.

¶25

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 30.10.2023. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited , has been filed.

¶26

¶27

OA NO.1829/2022

¶28

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel through Video Conferencing 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 A20 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.33,99,908.93 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eight & Paise Ninety Three 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.

¶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 monthly rests from 09.06.2022 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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester 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.

¶33

¶34

OA NO.1829/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.33,99,908.93 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eight & Paise Ninety Three only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.01.2026. 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 . Dated: 19.12.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurmit 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 Sh. Gurwinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Tarsem Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Netarpal Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Navdeep Singh Sohal

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh