Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jaspal Singh

DRT19 May 2026OA/299/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹51,65,531/- with interest, finding that the loan was validly advanced and outstanding. The court directed the sale of mortgaged land and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹51,65,531/- with interest @12% per annum allowed; recovery certificate issued; mortgaged land to be sold.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 299/2023 Date of Institution: 30.01.2023 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Jaspal Singh s/o Sh. Didar Singh, r/o H.No.1, Village Abdal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Navjot Singh s/o Sh. Jaspal Singh, r/o H.No.1, Village Abdal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

Mukhtar Singh s/o Sh. Harjeet Singh, r/o Village Dharamkot, Randhawa, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. J.S. Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 09.02.2024 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹51,65,531/- with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 30.01.2023.

¶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 ₹51,65,531/- with interest against Sh. Jaspal Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 27.06.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹38.00 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. The loan was chargeable to interest

¶17

¶18

@12% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 17.11.2022, a sum of ₹51,65,531/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 22.02.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 09.02.2024, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. 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. 5. 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 ₹38.00 Lacs and on 17.11.2022, a sum of ₹51,65,531/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹51,65,531/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One Only) with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests from 30.01.2023, 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. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 23.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶20

¶21

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: 19.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jaspal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Jaspal 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 Sri Subir Chatterjee

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganesh Barman

Ms Khan Brothers Ginning and Pressing Through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ejas Khan Yunus Khan versus State Bank of India

Prabhjit Singh versus Hindu Cooperative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M S Advance Associate

Harinder Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank