Allowed

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

DRT10 Apr 2026OA/26/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to recover Rs. 54,98,777.00 from three respondents. The court declared the respondents liable to pay the principal amount plus simple interest at 8% p.a., authorizing recovery through the sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Declaring respondents liable to pay Rs. 54,98,777.00 plus costs and interest @ 8% p.a. Ordering issue of Recovery Certificate and liberty to recover dues through sale of assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 26/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.04.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act-V of 1970, having its Registered Office at 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and having one its Branch Offices, at SCO No. 153-155, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Senior Manager Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh R/o Village Chet Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Faridkot, now R/o Baba Farid Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Tawinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Daljit Singh Sandhu R/o Village Chet Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Faridkot, now R/o Baba Farid Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶11

Sh. Daljinder Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh R/o Baba Farid Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 16.02.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 54,98,777.00 (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven Only) The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager of applicant vide Resolution dated 31.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA NO.26/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no. 1 & 2 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.50.00 Lacs, vide Loan Application dated 06.03.2013. Defendant No. 3 stood as Guarantor.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.42.00 Lacs, vide Sanction Letter dated 12.03.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e., Total Land Measuring 76 Kanal 15 Marla, situated at Village Sher Singh Wala, Hadbast No. 62, Tehsil & District Faridkot, vide Registered Mortgaged Deed No. 299 dated 18.04.2013 with English Translation of Back Side of Vasika, which are Annexures A11 & A12 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed:- Amalgamation Scheme sanctioned by Reserve Bank of India dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; D.P. Note, Take Deliver Letter, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letter executed by the Borrower, Consent Letter executed by the Guarantor, Undertaking Cum Letter of Authorization for Insuring Crop and Other Movable Assets, Undertaking, all dated 14.03.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A10 to this OA; Guarantee Bond executed by the Defendant No. 3, dated 14.03.2023, which is Annexures A13 to this OA; Legal Notice with Postal Receipts dated 07.12.2024, which is Annexure A14 , to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Interest Chart, which is Annexure A16 to this OA.

¶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. 54,98,777.00, 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.

¶23

3 OA NO.26/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

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 16.02.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, has been filed. 8. 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 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.54,98,777.00 (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven 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 elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.00% p.a. with @2.00% p.a. penal interest with monthly/half yearly rests from 23.11.2024 to 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

¶25

4 OA NO.26/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. SH. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶26

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.54,98,777.00 (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven 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 assets/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.

¶27

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 3	0.04.2026
15.	Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to
defe	ndants through registered/speed post and this order be also
uplo	aded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.
Pron	ounced by me in the open Tribunal.
Date	d: 10.04.2026

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Surjit 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Satpal Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Inderjit Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Virasat E Punjab and Anr.

Canara Bank versus M/S Inderdeep Singh and Sons and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S v. B . Exports and Another