Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Dhillion and Another

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/390/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III Chandigarh allowed an original application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for recovery of loan dues of Rs.64.49 lakhs from two borrowers. The court awarded simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate given the defendants did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.64,49,582.21 with simple interest @8% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate; execution against hypothecated vehicles allowed.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh Dhillion… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.390/2026

¶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

1. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon S/o Sh. Gurteg Singh, R/o H.No.438, Gali No.1, Ward No.14, Guru Nanak Basti, Jalalabad Road Byepass, Sri Mukatsar Sahib, Tehsil & District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, Punjab – 152026.

¶10

2. Sh. Gurteg Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, R/o H.No.438, Gali No.1, Ward No.14, Guru Nanak Basti, Jalalabad Road Byepass, Sri Mukatsar Sahib, Tehsil & District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, Punjab -152026.

¶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.64,49,582.21 (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Twenty One 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

2 OA NO.390/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURPREET SINGH DHILLION AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.45,00,000.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 26.03.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility against hypothecation of Two units of used Commercial Vehicles of Rs.30,46,384.00 vide Individual Customer Relation Form dated 20.11.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.45,04,950.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 28.03.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility against hypothecation of Two units of used Commercial Vehicles of Rs.30,46,384.00 and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Loan cum Guarantee Agreement dated 05.12.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his Movable Assets i.e.,

¶21

(i) ASHOK LEYLAND GP4825 bearing Registration No. PB04AG9798, Chassis No. MB1NECHD0RPPZ7055, Engine No. RPPZ102267 vide Tax Invoice dated 26.03.2024 along with Virtual Registration Copy, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶22

(ii) MAHINDRA BLAZO 37 bearing Registration No. PB10GW4966, Chassis No. MA1PHAPHDJ6D98341, Engine No. EFJZD14288 vide Virtual Registration Copy, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. (iii) MAHINDRA BLAZO 37 bearing Registration No. PB03AW5959, Chassis No. MA1PHAPHDJ6F97791, Engine No. EGJZF17680 vide

¶23

Virtual Registration Copy, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Notes, Powers of Attorney, dated 28.03.2024, 05.12.2024, which are Annexures A5, A6, A9 & A10 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 08.01.2026, along with

¶25

postal receipts, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Statement of

¶26

accounts along with certificates, which are Annexures A14 to A16 to this OA.

¶27

3 OA NO.390/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURPREET SINGH DHILLION AND ANOTHER

¶28

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs.64,49,582.21, 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶31

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.

¶32

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which were granted to him, defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor, thereafter, the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.64,49,582.21 (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Twenty One 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. 10. 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 in all the loan accounts from 28.12.2025 till the realization.

¶33

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the

¶34

4 OA NO.390/2026 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS SH. GURPREET SINGH DHILLION AND ANOTHER

¶35

crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.64,49,582.21 (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two and Paise Twenty One Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan accounts 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 vehicles 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.

¶37

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 08.07.2026.

¶40

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.

¶41

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶42

Dated: 23.06.2026

¶43

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶44

Presiding Officer,

¶45

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Dhillion and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Dhillion 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