Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jagdish Singh

DRT21 Apr 2026OA/1025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues totaling ₹93,75,704/- with interest. The court held the bank proved its case through affidavits and documents, ordering a recovery certificate issuance and distribution of sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for ₹93,75,704/- plus interest; directed to sell mortgaged land and distribute proceeds.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Jagdish Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1025/2022 Date of Institution: 09.05.2022 Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Jagdish Singh s/o Sh. Jassa Singh, r/o H.No.330, Village Hardowal, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Shamsher Singh s/o Jagdish Singh, r/o H.No.330, Village Hardowal, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

Tehal Singh s/o Sh. Joginder Singh, r/o H.No.187, Village Makowal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 01.03.2023 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹93,75,704/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 09.05.2022.

¶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 ₹93,75,704/- with interest against Sh. Jagdish Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 29.10.2013, it had granted a loan of ₹75.00 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor vide guarantee bond dated 29.10.2013. The loan

¶17

¶18

was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 23.03.2022, a sum of ₹93,75,704/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 18.06.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 01.03.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

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 ₹75.00 Lacs and on 23.03.2022, a sum of ₹93,75,704/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹93,75,704/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred Four Only) with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 09.05.2022, 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.

¶21

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶22

¶23

mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶24

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: 21.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jagdish Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jagdish 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

Sulaiman Kavungathodi versus Axis Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Deepak Chaturvedi

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shri Wakar Ahmed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Wani Garments

Prafulla Kumar versus Authum Investment Infrastructure Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Kuldeep Singh