Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. Sh. Ishwar Singh

DRT6 Apr 2026OA/111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank. The court held defendants liable for Rs.21,17,817.09 and ordered recovery via sale of hypothecated assets, directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate under the RDDB Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.21,17,817.09 with 8% simple interest (effective till filing), to be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 111/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 14.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.04.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Act having its Registered Office, at 27 BKC, C 27,G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051 and having its branches all over India including its branch at SCO 131132-133, 2^nd Floor , Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana141001 through its Manager Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh, R/o Village Kharkhara (43), Tehsil & District Mahendragarh, Haryana123029.

¶10

Ms. Indra D/o Sh. Shiv Nath, R/o Village Kharkhara (43), Tehsil & District Mahendragarh, Haryana-123029.

¶11

Sh. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Dharam Dev R/o Village Sehlang (19), Tehsil & District Mahendragarh, Haryana-123027.

¶12

… ….. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2026)

¶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.21,17,817.09 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Paise Nine Only) The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024 , which is Annexure A1 to this OA;

¶18

2 OA/111/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.42,23,400.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 23.10.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.42,23,400.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 05.11.2023 along with schedules, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his movable Assets i.e., Commercial Vehicle namely “TATA SIGNA 5530’’ bearing Registration No. HR66C1100, Engine No. B67B62300D02132K64331366, Chassis No. MAT828045P2K26038 vide Tax Invoice dated 31.10.2023 along with virtual Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Documents Executed: Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney both dated 05.11.2023, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 23.12.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA;

¶20

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.21,17,817.09 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.

¶21

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶22

3 OA/111/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 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 applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,17,817.09 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Paise Nine 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.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 10.12.2025 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 hypothecated asset, 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 simple interest @8.00%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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,17,817.09 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen and Paise Nine Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan

¶26

¶27

OA/111/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. ISHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶28

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 commercial vehicle of the defendant no.1 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.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 23.04.2026.

¶32

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: 06.04.2026

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶34

Presiding Officer,

¶35

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. Sh. Ishwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. Sh. Ishwar 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ag Fasteners and Another

Au Small Finance Bank Limited versus Rv Enterprises and Others

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Knit N Craft and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Tash Kanwar and Others