Allowed

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

DRT6 Jan 2026OA/356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank applicant's Original Application for recovery of Rs.1,21,80,242.00 owed by mortgagors. The court granted a Recovery Certificate and ordered uniform simple interest at 08% p.a., rejecting the applicant's higher claim, while permitting recovery through sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; defendants liable to pay principal with simple interest @8% p.a. Recovery via mortgage sale or attachment of assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.356/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.01.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.01.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a body corporate constituted under Banking Regulations Act, 1949 having its Registered Office at 27ВКС, 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 Regulations Act, 1949 having its branches all over India including branch at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Commercial Banking SCO-153154-155, Basement, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurpal Singh S/o Sh. Harjeevan Singh, R/o VPO Jorhkian, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab-151507.

¶10

Sh. Harjeevan Singh @ Jeevan Singh, S/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh R/o House No.88, Village Jorhkian, Tehsil Jhuneer, District Mansa, Punjab-151507.

¶11

Sh. Gursewak Singh S/o Sh. Harjiwan Singh, R/o House No.11, Village Jorhkian, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab151507.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rajan Puri, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 06.09.2023

¶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.1,21,80,242.00 (Rupees One

¶18

Crore Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two

¶19

¶20

OA NO.356/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LMITED VS. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶21

Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 14.06.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.99.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 14.03.2013.

¶23

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.95.00 Lacs vide Credit arrangement letter dated 23.08.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶24

Defendant nos.1 and 2 mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. land measuring 199K-05M situated at Villages Nanglan, Jorhkiyan and Kaniyanwali, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab vide Mortgage deed dated 22.08.2013, which is Annexure A8 to this ОА. Letter dated 30.08.2013 of marking of lien, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶25

Documents executed: Order dated 01.04.2015 of Reserve Bank of India regarding Amalgamation of ING Vyasa Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Pronote, take delivery letter to DPN, Hypothecation agreement, Consent letter executed by the defendants, all dated 31.08.2013, which are Annexures A4 to A7 to this OA; Legal notice dated 05.01.2022, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A11 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.1,21,80,242.00, 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.

¶27

¶28

OA NO.356/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LMITED VS. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

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 06.09.2023.

¶30

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager and Authorized Representative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., has been filed.

¶31

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶32

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 A11 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.1,21,80,242.00 (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two 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.

¶33

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.20%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 26.11.2021 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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶35

¶36

OA NO.356/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LMITED VS. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶37

years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform 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.

¶38

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,21,80,242.00 (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two 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

¶39

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.

¶40

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶41

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶43

Tribunal on 19.01.2026.

¶44

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.

¶45

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶46

Dated: 06.01.2026

¶47

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶48

Presiding Officer,

¶49

DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurpal 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus M/S the Urban Beauty House and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kashmir Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S v K Creations and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kuldip Singh and Others