Allowed

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

DRT11 Feb 2026OA/92/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed an Original Application for recovery of a loan principal and interest from two borrowers/guarantors. After ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal held the defendants liable for the dues and granted interest at 8.00% p.a. instead of the claimed 14%. Relief includes a Recovery Certificate and authority to attach assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 61,56,653.67 with 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date until realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 92/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 11.02.2026

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, (a body Corporate, constituted under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949) having its Head office at 27BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 and its Branch Office at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited SCO-537, Sector-70, Mohali, District SAS Nagar-160070, through its Authorized

¶7

Representative Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager.

¶8

……..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sh. Rajbir Singh S/o Kashmiri Singh H.no 33, Village Machhike Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran- 143416

¶11

Sh. Gurpeet Singh S/o Kashmiri Singh H.no 82, Village Machhike Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran-143416.

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by, Sh. Rehan Chaudhary, Advocate for applicant ( Through

¶15

VC)

¶16

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 29.07.2025

¶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. 61,56,653.67 (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Sixty Seven 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 A2 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA/92/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

The brief facts of the OA that the Defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 50.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 29.01.2011. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs. 50.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 05.02.2011, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 117Karnal-17Marla Situated at Village Khamkaran, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 4124 dated 07.02.2011, along its translation, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: RBI Notification dated 01.04.2015 on amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement dated 07.02.2011 which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Guarantee Bond dated 07.02.2011 which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 11.11.2024, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶24

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of. Rs. 61,56,653.67 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but he 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 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2025

¶26

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

¶27

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

3 OA/92/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶29

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 A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. 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. 61,56,653.67 (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Sixty Seven 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 @12.00%p.a. with 2% penal interest from 23.11.2024 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 hypothecated assets/mortgaged properties, 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 uniform 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.

¶32

4 OA/92/2025 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.61,56,653.67 (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three and Paise Sixty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current 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 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. 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 25.02.2026. 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: 11.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajbir 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Vishal Soni And Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Teria Machinery Store and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Raj Deepak Fruit Company and Others

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vijay Kumar and Another

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mandhar Medical Agency and Others