Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Netarpal Singh and Another

DRT19 Dec 2025OA/25/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 42.6 Lacs against two joint borrowers. Despite an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal held the loan documents proved liability. It granted a uniform simple interest rate of 8% p.a. and ordered execution of the claim against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 42,60,027.00 jointly and severally with costs and 8% simple interest from filing until realization via sale of mortgaged properties.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.25/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 19.12.2025

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a cooperate Body constituted under the Banking Companies Act-V of 1970, having its registered office at 27, ВКС, С-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and having one of its Branch office at SCO No. 153-155, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Senior Manager Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Netarpal Singh R/o Village Hedon, Tehsil Samrala, Distt Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Sukhvir Singh R/o Village Hedon, Tehsil Samrala, Distt Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶10

………. Defendants

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for Applicant

¶13

Defendants already ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.42,60,027.00 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Sixty Thousand & Twenty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution

¶16

dated 31.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the

¶18

applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 17.10.2013.

¶19

2 OA/25/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. NETARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.35.00 lacs vide Sanction letter dated 21.10.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his immovable propertY i.e. land 56 Kanal 0 Marla (7 Acre) situated at Vakya Rakba Hedon, Hadbast No.112, Tehsil Samrala, Distt Ludhiana, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no.3036 dated 29.01.2014, along with its translation, which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA. Documents executed : Amalgamation of Sanctioned by Reserve Bank of India dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; DP Note, Take delivery letter to DPN, hypothecation agreement, Consent letter executed by the borrower, Undertaking cum letter of authorization for insuring crop and others moveable assets, Undertaking all dated 28.01.2014, which are Annexures A4 to A9 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 07.12.2024 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of Account along with Interest Chart, which are Annexures A13 & A14 t o this OA. 5. 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.42,60,027.00, 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. 6. 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 28.11.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant

¶21

3 OA/25/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. NETARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A14 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.42,60,027.00 (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Sixty Thousand & Twenty Seven 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.

¶23

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 2% penal interest from 23.11.2024 till the realization. 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.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.42,60,027.00(Rupees Forty Two Lacs Sixty Thousand & Twenty Seven 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

¶25

¶26

OA/25/2025

¶27

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. NETARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

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.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.01.2026.

¶31

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.

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶33

Presiding Officer,

¶34

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Netarpal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Netarpal Singh and Another

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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Navdeep Singh Sohal

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Pawni Environment and Energy Management Pvt. Ltd. and Others