KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK VS. AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.37.00 Lacs vide credit arrangement letter dated 15.05.2013, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant nos. 1 & 2 mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Land measuring 64Kanal-01Marla situated at Village Raitgarh, Tehsil & District Sangrur, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 415 dated 22.05.2013, along with its translation, which are Annexures A11 and A12 to this OA. Documents executed: Amalgamation Scheme sanctioned by RBI dated 01.04.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; D.P Note, Take 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 21.05.2013, which are Annexures A4 to A10 and 13 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 30.09.2023, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Statement of Account with interest chart, which are Annexure A15 and A16 to this OA. 5. 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.62,18,040.00 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. 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 22.05.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharma, Senior Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy 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 A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached
