Allowed

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

DRT28 Aug 2026OA/448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, King's Bench Division jurisdiction was not invoked. The Tribunal allowed the application for recovery of a loan default by the defendants, granting a specified interest rate and ordering the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,30,594.00 plus interest @08% p.a., costs, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.448/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.03.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.08.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a Cooperate Body constituted under the Banking Companies Act V of 1970 having its Registered Office at 27, BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and having one of its Branch Office at SCO no. 153-155, Sector 9C, Chandigarh through its Senior Manager, Sh. Munish Sharma

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ranjit Singh, R/o House no. 17, Jhaner, Tehsil Malerkotla,

¶10

District Sangrur, Punjab

¶11

Smt. Dalip Kaur, R/o House no. 17, Jhaner, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab

¶12

Sh. Parminder Singh, S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, R/o House no. 17, Part I, Jhaner, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for applicant

¶16

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2026)

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 29,30,594.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 31.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA NO. 448/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 05.07.2011, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 22.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 19.07.2011, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 06 Bighe 10 Biswe situated at Vakya Rakba Jhaner, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab vide Registered Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 906 dated 19.07.2011 along with its translation, which are Annexure A12 and A13 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: Amalgamation Scheme dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; DP Note, Take Delivery Letter, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letters and Undertaking cum Letter of Authorization, Undertaking and Guarantee, all dated 20.07.2011, which are Annexure A5 to A11 and A14 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.02.2024 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A15 to this OA and Statement of Account with interest chart, which are Annexure A16 and A17 to this OA.

¶24

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. 29,30,594.00, 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.

¶25

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 24.08.2026.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior

¶27

Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited h as been filed.

¶28

3 OA NO. 448/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

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.

¶31

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A17 to this OA, it is proved that defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor. Defendants 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. 29,30,594.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four 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.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12%p.a. plus @2% penal interest with monthly/half yearly rests from the date of institution of OA 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 crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets/mortgaged property, 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

¶34

4 OA NO. 448/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

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 sum of Rs.29,30,594.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four 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 mortgaged property 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. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 10.09.2026. 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.

¶39

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶40

Dated: 28.08.2026

¶41

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶42

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Ranjit 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Anuj Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Bikram Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Simranjot Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S M. K. Industries and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Shabeg Singh and Another

Central Bank of India versus M/S Guru Kirpa Knitwear Fashion and Another