Allowed

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

DRT13 Feb 2026OA/1922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a defaulting loan account. Declaring the respondents liable to pay the outstanding principal plus interest at 8% p.a., the order authorized recovery from mortgaged properties or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Debt of Rs.40,21,352.20 with interest @8% p.a. to be recovered from hypothecated properties or personal assets of respondents.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1922/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 13.02.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a body corporate constituted under 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 Vyasa Bank under the amalgamation scheme on 01.04.2015, sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its branches all over India including branch at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Commercial Banking SCO - 153-154-155, Basement, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o H. No. 41, Village Pabri, HB No. 60, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala Punjab-140401.

¶10

Sh. Lakhvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o H. No. 41, Village Pabri, HB No. 60, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab140401.

¶11

Sh. Bhagwant Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o H. No. 41, Village Pabri, HB No. 60, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab140401.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rajan Puri, Advocate for Applicant

¶15

Defendants are ex-parte vide order dated 29.09.2023

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.40,21,352.20 (Rupees Forty Lacs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Twenty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the

¶18

¶19

OA NO. 1922/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 27.06.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.28.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 08.07.2014. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.28.00 Lacs vide Credit arrangement letter dated 22.07.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶23

Defendant Nos.1 & 2 mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 19Bigha-04Biswa (9Bigha-12Biswa in the name of defendant no. 1 and 9Bigha-12Biswa in the name of defendant no. 2), situated at Village Pabri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab vide mortgaged deed dated 22.07.2014, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Advocate Letter dated 22.07.2014 regarding marking of lien, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed : Scheme of Amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Pronote, Take Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letter executed by borrower, Undertaking cum letter of authorization for insuring crops and other movable assets, Consent executed by defendants, Guarantee Bond, Consent executed by guarantor, all dated 24.07.2014, which are Annexures A4 to A9, & A12 and A13 to this OA; Legal notice dated 17.11.2022 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶25

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.40,21,352.20, 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.

¶26

¶27

OA NO. 1922/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

¶28

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 29.09.2023.

¶29

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

¶30

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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 A15 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.40,21,352.20 (Rupees Forty Lacs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Twenty 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.

¶31

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 with monthly rests from 08.10.2022 till the realization.

¶32

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 loans 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

¶33

¶34

OA NO. 1922/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

@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.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.40,21,352.20 (Rupees Forty Lacs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Twenty 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.

¶37

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 27.02.2026. 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.

¶38

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 13.02.2026.

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Harbans 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishal Trading and Co. and Another

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Pritpal Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Manjit Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gursharan Singh Rattan Alias Major Gursharan Singh Rattan and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurjant Singh and Another