Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Smt. Taranjit Kaur and Another

DRT12 Feb 2026OA/1625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application under RDB Act for recovery of a loan debt. The court ordered joint and several liability of defendants to pay principal with interest at 8% p.a., permitting recovery via hypothecated properties or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay principal and 8% p.a. interest. Recovery via sale of mortgaged/movable properties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Taranjit Kaur and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1625/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (in which ING Vysya Bank Ltd stands amalgamated and the name of IVBL has been changed to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (KMBL) pursuant to the order issued by Reserve Bank of India under sub section 4 of section 44A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation effective from 01.04.2015, as communicated by RBI vide its letter no. DBR.No.PSBD.14527/16.01.136/2014-15 dated March 31-2015 and order issued by RBI vide Letter no. DBR/PSBD/14476/16.01.136/201415 dated March 31^st 2015, thus the applicant is a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at 27BKС, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai and branches at different places one at Ludhiana, Punjab, through Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Officer of Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

1. Smt. Taranjit Kaur W/o Sh. Harjinder Singh, R/o Village Ghamroda, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶9

1. Sh. Harjinder Singh Son of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, R/o Village Ghamroda, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab. ……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Advocate for Applicant

¶12

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.2023.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.27,18,017.00 (Rupees

¶15

¶16

OA NO. 1625/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS.TARANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶17

Twenty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Seventeen 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 27.06.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Application form dated 14.11.2011, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 24.11.2011, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 mortgaged his immoveable properties i.e. land measuring 32K-0M situated at Village Ghamroda, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no.4563 dated 07.12.2011, along with its translation, which are Annexures A11 & A12 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed : Order of amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank Limited with Kotak Mahindra Bank issued by Reserve Bank of India dated 31.03.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; Agreement (Annexure B-1), Demand Promissory Note, Take Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letter to be executed by Borrower, Undertaking cum letter of Authorization for insuring crop and other movable assets, all dated 20.12.2011, Which are Annexures A5 to A10 to this OA; Notice dated 22.07.2022 along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A13 to A15 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A16 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.27,18,017.00, 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

¶22

OA NO. 1625/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS.TARANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶23

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 17.11.2023.

¶24

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

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel 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 A16 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.27,18,017.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Seventeen 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. 10. In so far as pendent lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75% p.a. with half yearly rests from 09.06.2022 till the realization.

¶27

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 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

¶28

¶29

OA NO. 1625/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS.TARANJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶30

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.27,18,017.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Eighteen Thousand Seventeen 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/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 26.02.2026. 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: 12.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Smt. Taranjit Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Smt. Taranjit Kaur and Another

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbir Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harbans Singh and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu Alias Sukhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another