Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Muqadar Enterprises

DRT16 Aug 2024OA/1281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.30,23,371.51 plus interest. The court held that the bank proved its case of non-existent loans and ordered recovery from joint and several liability of all defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,23,371.51 with interest @10.50% per annum from filing date till payment, along with costs, from all defendants jointly and severally.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Muqadar Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1281 of 2022 Date of Institution: 30.05.2022 Date of Decision: 16.08.2024

¶4

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., having its Registered Office at Maulana Azad Road, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Muqadar Enterprises, R/o Rawathpora, Baghat Barzulla through its proprietor Mr. Muzzafar Shaban.

¶8

Mr. Muzzafar Shaban S/o Sheikh Mohammad Shaban proprietor of M/s Muqadar Enterprises, R/o Rawathpora, Baghat Barzulla.

¶9

Mr. Mehraj Ud Din Yatoo S/o Muhammad Shaban Yatoo, R/o Rawwathpora, Baghat Barzulla.

¶10

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Sheikh S/o Abdul Gaffar Sheikh, R/o Sheikh zoo, Batwani Lar Ganderbal.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. P. S. Sobti, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶14

Defendants- Ex parte.

¶15

OA for the Recovery of Rs.30,23,371.51p with interest from the date of filing the present application i.e. 30.05.2022.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Jammu & Kashmir Bank (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.30,23,371.51p with interest against M/s Muqadar Enterprises And Others(defendants).

¶18

Bank’s case is that on 16.03.2015, it had granted CC Hypothecation limit of Rs.20.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. To secure the loan, Defendant no.4 had mortgaged his

¶19

¶20

immovable property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14% per annum with monthly rests. Thereafter, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, on 28.02.2017, bank had granted rehabilitation loan (WCTL) of Rs.5,63,538/- and WCDL of Rs.4,00,000/-. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor. The WCTL loan facility was chargeable to interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests and WCDL loan facility was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.30,23,371.51p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

On 14.07.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 13.04.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Umesh Sharma, Authorized Representative along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 22. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the different loan facilities and on 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.30,23,371.51p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.30,23,371.51p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy One And Paisa Fifty One Only) with interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the present application i.e. 30.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several.

¶22

¶23

Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated stocks/goods, fully detailed in para No.3A of the application, as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 16.09.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property and hypothecated goods/stocks as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶25

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 16.08.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Muqadar Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Muqadar Enterprises

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

Abdul Khader Mohammed versus South Indian Bank

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Tulsi Trading Company and Anr.

Ms Radhe Shyam Trading Co. versus Icici Bank Limited

Late Baraiya Danajibhai Arjunbhai through its one of the legal heir Mr Nainesh Danajibhai Baraiya versus Yes Bank

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Shri Jatinder Bir Singh

Sunila Sudesh Kotian Being Sole Proprietress of Bharat Engineering Services versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited