Allowed

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

DRT10 Feb 2026OA/1096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application seeking recovery of Rs.85,04,779.74 from defaulting borrowers and guarantor. The court granted 8% p.a. interest and authorized recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.85,04,779.74 with costs and simple interest @8.00%p.a. from date of filing till realization, enforceable via sale of hypothecated assets or attachment of personal assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1096/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.08.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.02.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate 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 9-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sukhdeep S/o Sh. Tasbir Singh, R/o H. No. 338, Part 2, Village Marhi Megha, Tehsil Patti & District Tarn Taran-143416

¶10

Sh. Tasbir Singh S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh, R/o H. No. 462, Village Marhi Megha, Tehsil Patti & District Tarn Taran-143416

¶11

Sh. Pargat Singh S/o Sh. Santa Singh, R/o H. No. 356, Village Marhi Megha, Teshil Patti & District Tarn Taran-143416

¶12

….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Soarabh Sihota, Advocate proxy for the applicant (through VC)

¶15

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 04.03.2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.85,04,779.74 (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Seventy Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 31.08.2023 which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA/1096/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.55.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 12.08.2014. Defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.55.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 19.08.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 128Kanal-00Marla situated at Marhi Megha, Teshil Patti & District Tarn Taran, Punjab vide declaration dated 30.09.2014 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: RBI Notification dated 01.04.2015 on Amalgamation, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Agreement BI, D.P Note, Take a Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee Bond, Consent Letter by Borrower, Consent Letter by Guarantor, Undertaking cum letter of authorization for insuring crop and other movable assets, all dated 23.08.2014, which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.06.2024, along with Postal Receipts dated 26.06.2024, which are Annexures A13 to A16 to this OA; Account Statement with certificate and interest chart, which are Annexures A17 to A19 to 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.85,04,779.74 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.

¶23

3 OA/1096/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

¶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 vide order dated 04.03.2025.

¶25

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

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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 A19 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant 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.85,04,779.74 (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Seventy Four Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. 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 05.03.2024 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 defendant, quantum of loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this

¶28

4 OA/1096/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amounts ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.85,04,779.74 (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Seventy Four Only) 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 assets/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.

¶31

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 24.02.2026. 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: 10.02.2026.

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Kamaal Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jarnail Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Nanni Devi and Another