Allowed

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

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/136/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Kotak Mahindra Bank against borrowers and guarantors for recovery of Rs.50.42 lakh. The Tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% p.a. and issued a Recovery Certificate, authorizing sale of mortgaged or hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.50,42,886.80 with interest at 8% p.a., costs, and authorization to recover via sale of mortgaged assets under SARFAESI Act.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.136/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.02.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 having its Head Office at 27BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051, and its Branch Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bath Road, Village Pandori Gola, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran-143401 and Kotak Mahindra Bank, Landran Road, Khasra No. 678, Sohana, Mohali-140308, through its Authorized Representative Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Tripat Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh H.No.296, Gali Ram Lal Wali, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran-143401.

¶10

Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Tripat Singh, H. No.296, Gali Ram Lal Wali, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran-143401.

¶11

Sh. Harbans Singh S/o of Sh. Hari Singh, H. No.296, Gali Ram Lal Wali, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran-143401.

¶12

Sh. Gurmehr Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh, H. No.335, Village Bugga, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran-143401.

¶13

……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Rehan Chaudhary, Advocate for the applicant (Through

¶16

VC)

¶17

Defendants are ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2026

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.50,42,886.80 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Eighty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to

¶20

¶21

OA NO. 136/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TRIPAT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶22

institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 31.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶23

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for grant KCC Limit of Rs.73.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 30.05.2014. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors.

¶24

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.70.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 13.06.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 80Kanal-02Marla situated at Village Bugha, Hadbast no. 73, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 5152 dated 25.06.2014, along with its translation, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶25

Documents executed: Sanction Scheme of ING Vysya Bank Amalgamation with Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement dated 18.06.2014, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Guarantee Bond dated 18.06.2014, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 11.11.2024, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶26

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.50,42,886.80 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 vide order dated 07.01.2026 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

¶28

OA NO. 136/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TRIPAT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

It was argued by learned 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 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 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.50,42,886.80 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Eighty 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.

¶30

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. with 2% penal interest from 23.11.2024 till the realization.

¶31

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.

¶32

¶33

OA NO. 136/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TRIPAT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.50,42,886.80 (Rupees Fifty Lacs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Eighty 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 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. 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 09.03.2026. 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: 23.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Tripat 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 Sh. Rafiq Ahmad and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kulwant Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Raghbir Singh and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Late Sh. Jassa Singh through His Legal Heirs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Amarjit Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Dewan Singh