Allowed

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

DRT5 Aug 2026OA/247/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 25,20,873.56 owed by the defendants from a term loan. The court reduced the claimed 24% per annum interest to 8% simple interest and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants directed to pay Rs. 25,20,873.56 with 8% simple interest from filing date; entitled to sell hypothecated vehicle.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Palwinderjit Singh… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 247/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.08.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai–400051, and Branch Office at SCO No. 131-132133, Second Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana– 141001, through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Palwinderjit Singh, S/o Sh. Manjit Singh, R/o Village Pasnawal, Block Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, Punjab–143518.

¶10

Sh. Inderjit Singh, S/o Sh. Manjit Singh, R/o Village Passnawal, District Gurdaspur–143518.

¶11

Sh. Sahib Singh, S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh, R/o Village Pasnawal, District Gurdaspur–143518.

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶15

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2026)

¶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.25,20,873.56 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Fifty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, of the Applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

¶19

OA/247/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. PALWINDERJIT AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1 & 2, approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.40,41,424.00 for purchase of commercial vehicle vide Loan A pplication Form dated 10.02.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.40,41,424.00 for purchase of commercial vehicle vide Sanction Letter dated 21.02.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his vehicle namely BHARAT BENZ 4828-R, bearing Registration No. PB06AZ6565, Engine No. 926956D0139494, Chassis No. MEC909FFAPP133650, vide Loan-cumGuarantee Agreement dated 21.02.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Virtual Registration Certificate of the hypothecated vehicle was filed on 30.07.2026 vide Dairy No. 14291.

¶23

Documents executed: D.P. Note dated 21.02.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts dated 10.01.2026, which are Annexure A6 to A9 to this OA; Statement of Account dated 27.12.2025, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.25,20,873.56 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Fifty Six Only), 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Manager, Kotak Mahindra B ank Limited, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.

¶24

¶25

OA/247/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. PALWINDERJIT AND OTHERS

¶26

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.

¶27

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1 & 2, approached the 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, 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.25,20,873.56 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Fifty Six 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.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24.00% p.a. with monthly rests from 28.12.2025 till the realization.

¶29

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 vehicle, 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 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.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,20,873.56 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Twenty Thousand Eight

¶31

¶32

OA/247/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. PALWINDERJIT AND OTHERS

¶33

Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Fifty Six 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 vehicle of the defendant no.1 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.08.2026

¶37

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: 05.08.2026.

¶38

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Palwinderjit 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Karanbir Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus M/S Rihaan Enterprises and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Rajinder Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Jashanpal Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gobind Ram

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Piara Singh and Others