Allowed

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

DRT4 Jun 2026OA/1164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 25,83,107.05 from the borrowers and guarantor, rejecting the plaintiff's claim of bimonthly interest substitution and granting simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,83,107.05 plus simple interest @08% p.a. from filing of OA till realization. Issuance of Recovery Certificate. Recovery from sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1164/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.06.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.06.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a Banking Company, incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and licensed under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its Registered Office at 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 and the successor to ING Vysya Bank Limited under the Amalgamation scheme dated 01/04/2015, sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the powers contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, having its branches all over India, including its Branch at S.C.O. 153-154-155, Sector 9/C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Balvir Singh S/O Sh. Jangir Singh, H.No. 104, Village Kadrabad, Hadbast No. 60, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala147101

¶9

Sh. Nachhter Kaur W/O Sh. Balbir Singh, H.No. 104, Village Kadrabad, Hadbast No. 60, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala147101

¶10

Sh. Lakhwinder Singh S/O Sh. Labh Singh, R/O H.No. 70, Village Kadrabad, Hadbast No. 60, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala147101

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Devinder Singh, Advocate for Applicant.

¶14

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2026)

¶15

¶16

OA/1164/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALVIR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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.25,83,107.05 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seven and Paise Five 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 14.06.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 & 2, approached the applicant for sanction of KCC Limit of Rs.24.00 lacs. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.24.00 lacs, vide Loan Agreement and ancillary documents dated 20.04.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA a nd terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his property ie. Agricultural Land measuring 38Kanal-0Marla situated at Village Kadrabad, Hadbast no.60, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab, vide Mortgage Deed bearing Wasika No. 104 dated 22.04.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: Amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Recall Notices dated 11.04.2022 with postal receipts, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.25,83,107.05 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seven and Paise Five Only), which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay

¶22

¶23

OA/1164/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALVIR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶25

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 02.06.2026.

¶26

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

¶27

Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶28

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 & 2, approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. 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.25,83,107.05 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seven and Paise Five Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00% p.a. plus 2.00% p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 24.03.2022 till the realization.

¶30

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, undertaking of

¶31

¶32

OA/1164/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. BALVIR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶33

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 @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.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,83,107.05 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred Seven and Paise Five 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 mortgaged property 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.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.06.2026

¶38

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 .

¶39

Dated: 04.06.2026.

¶40

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶41

Presiding Officer,

¶42

DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Balvir 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 M/S Grand Rock Fashions and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Mahal Commission Agent and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajveer Roadlines and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Friends Trading Company and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Ashroo and Another