Allowed

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

DRT20 Mar 2026OA/684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover Rs. 28,55,461.48 from three borrowers who failed to repay sanctioned KCC and Agriculture Term loans, issuing a Recovery Certificate and directing enforcement via asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Order directed defendants to pay Rs. 28,55,461.48 plus simple interest @ 8% p.a. through sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties or personal assets.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Tehal Singh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.684/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.04.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.03.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a body corporate constituted under Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Registered Office, at 27ВKС, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 and the successor to ING Vyasa Bank under the Amalgamation scheme on 01.04.2015, sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers contained in Sub Section (4) of Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its branches all over India including branch at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Commercial Banking SCO - 153-154-155, Basement, SEC-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh. Munish Sharma.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Tehal Singh S/o Atma Singh, R/o H. No. 7, Village Kubba, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141418

¶10

Sh. Jagdeep Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Singh, R/o H. No. 7, Village Kubba, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141418

¶11

Smt. Ravneet Kaur W/o Sh. Jagdeep Singh R/o H. No. 7, Village Kubba, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141418.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Rajan Puri, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendants are ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2025.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.28,55,461.48 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty One & Paise Forty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to

¶17

¶18

OA NO. 684/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TEHAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

institute the Original Application vide Resolution dated 14.06.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 15,90,280.00 and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.3.97 Lacs for Land Development. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.15,90,280.00 and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.3.97 Lacs vide Credit arrangement letter dated 03.10.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant nos. 1 mortgaged their immovable property i.e. land measuring 64K-00M situated at village Bharatpur Rajuputan, Hadbast No.352, Tehsil Gharshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab vide declaration dated 03.10.2018 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, w hich is Annexure A10 to this OA; Letter dated 03.10.2010 to Tehsildar/Sub Tehsildar for marketing of lien, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Documents executed: DP Notes, Take delivery letters to DPN, Deed of hypothecation, Master Facility Agreement, Cash Credit Facility Agreement, all dated 03.10.2018, which are Annexures A3 to A9 to this OA; Legal notice dated 01.03.2022, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of accounts, which are Annexures A13 & A14 to this OA. 5. 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. 28,55,461.48, 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. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank h as been filed.

¶21

¶22

OA NO. 684/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TEHAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶23

Heard ex parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A14 to this OA, it is proved that 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, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,55,461.48 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty One & Paise Forty Eight Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶25

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.50%p.a. with 2% penal interest from 01.02.2022 till the realization.

¶26

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 @08.00%p.a. in both 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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶28

¶29

OA NO. 684/2022 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. TEHAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶30

Rs.28,55,461.48 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty One & Paise Forty Eight Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both 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/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. 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 13.04.2026. 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: 20.03.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Tehal 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Karnail Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Jagtar Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Anil Verma and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Malkit Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Majid Transport Company and Others