Allowed

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

DRT16 Jan 2024TA/122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 40,21,238.29 with interest. The court upheld the bank's debt and directed recovery via the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 40,21,238.29 with interest at 13.50% per annum permitted; direction to Recovery Officer to distribute sale proceeds of mortgaged property.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sajad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 122 of 2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 24.09.2016 Date of Decision: 16.01.2024

¶5

The Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd., B/U Zaldagar, Srinagar through its Executive Manager Law, Mohammad Muzaffar Mufti.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Sajad Enterprises, Qamarwari Chowk, Srinagar, through its Prop. Sajad Hussain Reshi S/o Ghulam Nabi Reshi, R/o Qamarwari Chowk Srinagar.

¶9

Sajad Hussain Reshi S/o Ghulam Nabi Reshi, R/o Qamarwari Chowk, Srinagar.

¶10

Javaid Ahmed Reshi S/o Ghulam Nabi Reshi, R/o Qamarwar Chowk, Srinagar.

¶11

Nazir Ahmed Bhat S/o Abdul Gani Bhat, R/o Naqash Pora Barbar Shah, Srinagar.

¶12

Syed Parvaiz S/o Syed Mohammad Yasin, R/o Rawalpora, Srinagar.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Ms. Neha Arora, proxy counsel for Sh. KPS Dhillon, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶16

Defendants- Ex parte vide order dated 07.12.2018.

¶17

TA for the Recovery of Rs.40,21,238.29p with interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2016.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

On 24.09.2016, The Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd., had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.40,21,238.29p with interest against M/s Sajad Enterprises And Others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar. Vide order dated 21.02.2023, this suit has been

¶20

¶21

transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶22

Bank’s case is that on 24.11.2005, it had granted Secured Overdraft Loan of Rs.3.50 lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. Defendant nos.3 and 4 had stood as guarantors.

¶23

2(a). Again, on 31.07.2009, at the request of defendants, bank had enhanced the existing Secured Overdraft facility from Rs.3.50 lacs to Rs.10.00 lacs. Defendant nos.3 and 5 stood as guarantors. To secure the loan, defendants had created hypothecation of assets/goods. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests.

¶24

2(b). On 01.11.2010, at the request of defendants, bank had enhanced the existing Secured Overdraft facility from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.30.00 lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant no.2 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land admeasuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas, situated at Mujgund Srinagar (fully detailed in para No.10 of the application). Defendant nos.3 to 5 stood as guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.08.2016, a sum of Rs.40,21,238.29p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the Suit. 3. Summonses were sent to defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, defendants were proceeded ex parte .

¶25

¶26

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mufti Mohammad Muzaffar, Executive Manager Law, along with the loan and security documents. 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 loan of Rs.30.00 lacs and on 31.08.2016, a sum of Rs.40,21,238.29p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.40,21,238.29p (Rupees Forty Lacs Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight And Paisa Twenty Nine Only) with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2016, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property, fully detailed in para No.10 of the application and hypothecated assets/goods as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶27

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.02.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property and hypothecated assets/goods 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. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 16^th January, 2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Sajad 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

Ashrafudheen K versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jai Bihar Enterprises and others

Hdfc Bank versus Amandeep Singh Yadav

M S Firozabad Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Karanjit Singh versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ajit Ved Parkash