Allowed

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

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/382/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of Rs. 40.53 lakhs granted to defendants for a commercial vehicle loan. Tribunal fixed simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed attachment of hypothecated assets or personal assets for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants directed to pay Rs.40,53,917.13 with 8% simple interest; Hypothecated vehicle or personal assets liable for sale.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.382/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.06.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 and having branches all over India and one of its Branch Offices situated at SCO No.131-132-133, 2^nd Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana - 141001 through its Manager, Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Baljinder Singh, R/o Village Gharama Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab - 140401.

¶10

Sh. Harmail Singh S/o Sh. Baljinder Singh, R/o Village Gharama Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab – 140401.

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.40,53,917.13 (Rupees Forty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Paise Thirteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial

¶18

2 OA NO.382/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

Vehicle of Rs.47,00,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 08.07.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.48,02,732.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.08.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Movable Asset i.e., ASHOK LEYLAND 4825 bearing Registration No. PB11DH5755, Chassis No. MB1NECHDORPJB4041, Engine No. RKPZ118612 vide Tax Invoice dated 31.07.2024 along with Virtual Registration Copy, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney, dated 05.08.2024, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 15.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶23

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.40,53,917.13, 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.

¶24

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the

¶26

3 OA NO.382/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶27

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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.40,53,917.13 (Rupees Forty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Paise Thirteen 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 09.01.2026 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 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 @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.40,53,917.13 (Rupees Forty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Paise Thirteen 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 vehicle 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

¶31

¶32

OA NO.382/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶33

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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 08.07.2026. 15. 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: 23.06.2026

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurmail 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Gurmit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Nutech Engineers Inc. and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ravinder Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Ragvendra Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balwant Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gurpreet Kaur