KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs Rannvijay Singh Singha on 29 September 2026

1. Present as under:

Ms. Medha Rane, Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Dubey, Counsel for Respondent No. 1. No representation for other Respondents despite repeated calls.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the Appellant has not taken steps to serve Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are important parties being the original borrowers of the Bank.

3. The Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the submission, made by the Respondent/Alleged third party, is misplaced on the ground that he himself had not served the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, who are the original borrowers, in his Securitization Application before the Learned DRT. She further seeks adjournment.

4. The request for adjournment is allowed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that the submission made by the Counsel for Appellant is incorrect for the reason that the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Ld. DRT clearly reflects that in Securitization Application 61/2023 of the Respondent No. 1, it is clearly stated that service has been affected by the publication. He would further submit that this document has been filed by the Appellant Bank himself therefore, the submission made by the Counsel for Appellant is against the record.

6. List the matter on 11.01.2027 for further proceedings. Sd/- Chairperson 29.09.2026 VKC-22