Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

DRT13 Jul 2026OA/35/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for the recovery of a commercial vehicle loan defaulting. The court awarded liability for the principal amount and fixed interest at 8% p.a. jointly and severally against the borrower and guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 23,91,151.17 with simple interest at 8% p.a.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 35/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 13.07.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited having its Regional Office at SCO 131132-133, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab and Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Rakesh Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurdev Singh, S/o Sh. Mangal Singh, R/o Village Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab- 140417

¶10

Sh. Gurjeet Singh, R/o Village Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab- 140417

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Iqbal Mohammed, Advocate for applicant

¶14

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 11.05.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 23,91,151.17 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Ninety One Thousand One Hundred Fifty One and Paise Seventeen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is

¶17

competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney

¶18

dated 07.08.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs. 25.00 Lacs vide

¶20

2 OA/35/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶21

Loan cum KYC Documents dated 11.01.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶22

The applicant sanctioned Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.24,11,200.00 Lacs vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 31.01.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶23

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his movable asset namely Ashok Leyland CB AL 1915 bearing Registration no. PB11DK0336, Chassis no. MB1A5HCD7RADS7033 and Engine no. RGPZ131216 vide RC filed on 04.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 15.05.2026.

¶24

Documents Executed: DP Note and Request for Disbursement, both

¶25

dated 21.01.2025, which are Annexure A4 and A7 to this OA; Addendum Agreement, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Additional Clauses, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Undertaking dated 11.01.2025, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Self-Declaration, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Loan Recall Notice dated 15.12.2025, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexure A11 and A12 to this OA.

¶26

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. 23,91,151.17 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

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 11.05.2026.

¶28

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

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

3 OA/35/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶31

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.

¶32

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A12 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. 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. 23,91,151.17 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Ninety One Thousand One Hundred Fifty One and Paise Seventeen 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.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @24%p.a. with monthly rests from 13.12.2025 till the realization.

¶34

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 asset, 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 @8.00% 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.

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶36

4 OA/35/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶37

Rs.23,91,151.17 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Ninety One Thousand One Hundred Fifty One and Paise Seventeen Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% 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 asset of 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.

¶38

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 28.07.2026.

¶41

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.

¶42

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶43

Dated: 13.07.2026

¶44

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶45

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

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

Central Bank of India versus Sh. Gopal Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Harjeet Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Dharamvir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sandeep Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bajwa Traders and Others