Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Gurdev Singh

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/1771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.41,34,121/- with interest under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court held that the bank proved the advance of loan and the liability of the mortgagors and guarantor, directing the issue of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Dues recoverable from mortgaged land and personal property; Parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1771/2023 Date of Institution: 05.10.2023 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (erstwhile ING Vyasa Bank Limited) having its branches all over India and a branch at Qadian, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Gurdev Singh S/o Maihan Singh R/o H. No. 137, Village Jahdpur, Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Jaswant Singh S/o Maihan Singh R/o Village Jahdpur, Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

Harbhajan Singh S/o Amar Singh R/o H. No. 137, Village Jahdpur, Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.41,34,121/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.10.2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.41,34,121/- with interest against Sh. Gurdev Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 28.01.2015, it had granted a loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor vide deed of guarantee dated

¶17

¶18

29.01.2015. The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 21.06.2023, a sum of Rs.41,34,121/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 26.10.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 04.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18.

¶21

I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs and on 21.06.2023, a sum of Rs.41,34,121/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.41,34,121/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Thirty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty One Only) with interest @12% per annum with halfyearly rests from 05.10.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶23

¶24

mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Gurdev 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

State Bank of India versus Ms Nehra Refrigeration Centre

Canara Bank versus Hemanth

Canara Bank versus Shankargouda

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokinder Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh