Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Irshad Carpets

DRT4 Jun 2024TA/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed the Jammu and Kashmir Bank's claim for recovery of Rs.23,85,790.15p with interest against the defendant proprietor and guarantors. The court declared liability joint and several, while limiting one guarantor's liability to Rs.4.00 lacs. A recovery certificate was issued for enforcement via asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,85,790.15p with interest allowed; liability joint and several, except Rs.4.00 lacs for one guarantor; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 76 of 2023 Date of Institution: 03.01.2015 Date of Decision: 04.06.2024

¶4

The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Branch Unit Dalgate Srinagar through Assistant Vice President Law Mr. Farooq Ahmad Rather

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Irshad Carpets, Boulvard Dalgate Room No.13-A, Hotel Gulmarg.

¶8

Irshad Ahmad Malik S/o Late Ghulam Ahmad Malik, R/o K.K. Soukhta Nawa Kadal Srinagar.

¶9

Mohammad Anwar Shargoo S/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Shagoo, R/o Gousia Colony Bemina Srinagar.

¶10

Fayaz Ahmad Malik S/o Late Ghulam Ahmad Malik, R/o K. K. Soukhta Nawa Kadal Srinagar.

¶11

Mohammad Rafiq Nazra S/o Ghulam Rasool Nazra, R/o Khankahi Moulla, Fateh Kadal Srinagar.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates

¶14

Sh. Navpreet Singh, counsel for the applicant. Defendants- Ex parte .

¶15

TA for the Recovery of Rs.23,85,790.15p with interest from 03.01.2015.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

On 03.01.2015, The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.23,85,790.15p with interest against M/s Irshad

¶18

Carpets And Others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 07.02.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶19

Bank’s case is that on 29.10.2004, it had granted Cash Credit facility of Rs.4.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. Defendant nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors

¶20

vide executed deed of guarantee as Annexure A-12.

¶21

¶22

2(a). Thereafter, on 22.10.2005, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had enhanced the said Cash Credit facility from Rs.4.00 lacs to Rs.9.50 lacs. Defendant nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors to the said Cash Credit Facility of Rs.9.50 lacs vide executed deed of guarantee as Annexure A-25 and A-26. The said Cash Credit facility of Rs.9.50 lacs was chargeable to interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests.

¶23

2(b). Again, on 31.08.2006, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had enhanced the said Cash Credit facility from Rs.9.50 lacs to Rs.13.50 lacs. Defendant nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors to the said Cash Credit Facility of Rs.13.50 lacs vide executed deed of guarantee as Annexure A-39. The said Cash Credit facility of Rs.13.50 lacs was chargeable to interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the loan, defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 had created hypothecation of all kinds of stocks in the shape of Carpets etc., in trade lying at unit (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application). On 02.01.2015, a sum of Rs.23,85,790.15p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶24

In the present suit, on 31.10.2015, defendants filed written statement in the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar. However, after transferred to this Tribunal, summonses were sent to defendants by registered post, which were duly served and defendants did not put in appearance. Accordingly, vide order dated 25.10.2023, defendants were proceeded ex parte . Though, in the written statement filed by defendants, they alleged that the present suit is not maintainable, yet they have not led any evidence.

¶25

¶26

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Farooq Rather, Vice President 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.13.50 lacs and on 02.01.2015, a sum of Rs.23,85,790.15p was due. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that a guarantor cannot be asked to pay what he has not undertaken to pay.

¶27

6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.23,85,790.15p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Five Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety And Paisa Fifteen Only) with interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from 03.01.2015, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be
joint and several, the liability of defendant no.3 shall be limited to the
extent of Rs.4.00 lacs alongwith interest. Bank can recover its dues by
the sale of hypothecated assets/stocks in the shape of Carpets etc., in
trade lying at unit (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application) as well
as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the
defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
05.07.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
hypothecated assets/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.
Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 04^thJune, 2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Irshad Carpets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Irshad Carpets

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

M/S Tejpal Auto Spare versus Bank of India

Ms Chintpurni Plastics versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S Nagaraj Industries

Bank of India versus Mr Abdul Rahim Mohammed Yasir

Suresh Agarwal versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (Arcil)

V H Kunjumon versus Canara Bank