Allowed

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

DRT9 Sept 2026OA/389/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant bank sought recovery of Rs.21,08,785.22 from two defendants under RDBA 1993 for a defaulted term loan. Defendants appeared ex-parte. Tribunal allowed application, recovered principal with simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed sale of hypothecated asset for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,08,785.22 with simple interest at 8% p.a. granted. Recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.389/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.09.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, having its Registered Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051 and Branch Office at SCO 131-132-133, Second Floor, Apra Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana – 141001 through its Authorized Representative Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o H no. 2697, Moti Nagar, Baba Gaja Jain Colony, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141010. Also at :-

¶10

Plot No 21-23, Baba Gaja Jain Colony, Sedhi Sweet Street, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141010.

¶11

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Village Arnetu, Sadharanpur, Patiala, Punjab - 147102.

¶12

……. .Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Dipti Toni, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.21,08,785.22 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rakesh Kumar , Authorized Representative o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution, dated 29.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.389/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants a pproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.27,00,000.00 vide Credit Facility Application Form, dated 29.08.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of commercial vehicle of Rs.24,91,173.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement, dated 05.10.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Movable Asset i.e., Commercial vehicle namely Eicher CB Pro 2114, bearing Chassis No. MC2ESLRCORGB14122, Engine No. E426CDRG486426, Registration No. PB10JT6575, vide copy Virtual Registration Certificate filed vide dairy no.17099 on 07.09.2026.

¶21

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, dated 05.10.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Legal Notice, dated 30.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶22

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.21,08,785.22, 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

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 07.09.2026.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

3 OA NO.389/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶27

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of 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.21,08,785.22 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty 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 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 23.01.2026 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 @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.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.21,08,785.22 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty Two Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current

¶31

4 OA NO.389/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

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 i n 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.

¶33

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 21.09.2026.

¶36

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.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 09.09.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Sukhdev 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

Bank of India versus Anil Kumar and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bansal Enterprises and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Avtar Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Karamdeep Singh and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gurinderpal Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Lord Krishna Hosiery and Others