Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Karam Singh

DRT25 May 2026OA/1607/2022

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. 44.12 Lacs from the defendants, who were borrowers and a guarantor. The court mandated the payment of the principal amount along with future interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

A decree for Rs. 44,12,220.55 with future simple interest at 08% per annum was granted, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1607/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2026

¶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

…….A pplicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Karam Singh Son of Sh. Hardev Singh R/o House No. 515, Village Namol, Hadbast No. 11, Namol B.O., Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur-148106.

¶10

Sh. Balbir Singh @ Raghbeer Singh Son of Sh. Hardev Singh R/o House No. 515, Village Namol, Hadbast No. 11, Namol B.O., Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur-148106.

¶11

Sh. Baljinder Singh Son of Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o House No. 614, Village Namol, Hadbast No. 11, Namol B.O., Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur-148106.

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Mohit Sareen, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶15

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026).

¶16

2 OA/1607/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. KARAM 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.44,12,220.55 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, authorized representative who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 27.06.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 44.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 05.03.2015. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 40.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 14.03.2015 and ancillary documents, which are Annexure A3 (Colly) to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Agricultural Land measuring 72K-0M situated at Village Namol, Tehsil Sunam Udham Singh Wala, District Sangrur, Punjab, vide Declaration under Section 4(1) dated 11.06.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed : Amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 29.06.2022 with Postal Receipts dated 04.07.2022, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Account duly certified under Banker's Book Evidence Act, which is Annexure A6 to this ОА.

¶22

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.44,12,220.55 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty five Only), which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices, but they did not repay the

¶23

3 OA/1607/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 21.05.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Representative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte 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.

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants 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, 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.44,12,220.55 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty 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. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.10%p.a. plus 2.00% penal interest with half yearly rests, from 09.06.2022 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 assets/mortgaged property, 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

¶26

4 OA/1607/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS SH. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS

¶27

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.44,12,220.55 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty 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 nos. 1 & 2 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.06.2026

¶31

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 .

¶32

Dated: 25.05.2026

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶34

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Karam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Karam 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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Honey Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s Geomovers Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Honey Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ajmer Fuelogic Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kartar Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh