Allowed

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

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed application under RDB Act, 1993 filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank for recovery of dues from borrowers and guarantor. Tribunal ex-parte heard arguments, modified interest rate to 8% p.a., and directed issuance of recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.62,38,318.00 along with costs and future simple interest @8% p.a. Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.532/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.03.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a Body Corporate, 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 Officer at SCO No.153-155, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh through its Senior Manager Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Joginder Singh R/o H. No. 13, Village Dehleej Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

¶10

Sh. Inderjit Singh Dhali R/o H.No. 13, Village Dehleej Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

¶11

Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Harnek Singh, R/o H.No.54, Village Dehleej Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab

¶12

….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by: Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 28.05.2025

¶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.62,38,318.00 (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred & Eighteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager of the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 31.08.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.35.00 Lacs

¶19

2 OA/532/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

vide loan application dated 05.10.2012 which is Annexures A3 to this OA. Defendant no. 3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.35.00 Lacs vide Credit Arrangement letter dated 13.10.2012, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant No.1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Total Land 48 Kanal 7 Marla situated at Village Dehleej Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotala, District Sangarur, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 1452 Dated 22.10.2012, along with its translation, which are Annexure A12 and A13 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: Amalgamation Scheme Sanctioned by RBI dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; D.P Note, Delivery Letter to DPN, Hypothecation Agreement, Consent Letter executed by the borrower, consent letter executed by the guarantor, Undertaking cum Letter of Authorization for Insuring Crop and other movable assets, Undertaking, Guarantee Bond, all dated 22.10.2024 which are Annexures A5 to A12 and A14 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.02.2024 & Postal Receipts, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; 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.62,38,318.00 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.

¶25

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.05.2025.

¶26

3 OA/532/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶27

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has been filed.

¶28

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶29

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 A17 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he 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.62,38,318.00 (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred & Eighteen 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.

¶30

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest@12% p.a. plus 2 % penal interest half yearly rests from 06.03.2024 till the realization.

¶31

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 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 uniform simple interest @8% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till

¶32

4 OA/532/2024 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶33

realization of the amounts ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.62,38,318.00 (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred & Eighteen Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8%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 assets/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 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.

¶35

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 06.02.2026. 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: 27.01.2026

¶36

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Joginder 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aha International and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Hardeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sardar Singh Alias Sardara Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Parkash Singh

Union Bank of India versus Smt Ranjit Kaur and Another