Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mariyama Bano

DRT29 Jul 2025OA/1346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act for recovery due to the defendant's failure to appear. Evidence verified the loan and outstanding dues, permitting recovery from hypothecated assets and personal property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.81,31,457.66/- with interest directed from hypothecated stocks, book debts, and personal movable and immovable property of the defendant.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mariyama Bano — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1346/2022 Date of Institution: 30.05.2022 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025

¶4

The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Amira Kadal, Srinagar.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mariyama Bano w/o Mohammad Afzal Sheikh, r/o Haripora, Bonizal, Kangan Ganderbal, Srinagar.

¶8

……….Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Harinder Kumar proxy counsel for Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 16.10.2024 . OA for the Recovery of Rs.81,31,457.66/- with interest @14.45% per annum with monthly rests from 30.05.2022.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.81,31,457.66/- with interest against Mariyama Bano (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 05.02.2019, it had granted a loan of Rs.50.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of TOD Facility for Business purpose for 30 days. On the request of defendant the above mentioned limit was extended for further 60 days vide sanction letter dated 30.05.2019. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated stocks, book debts (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14.45% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.81,31,457.66/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

On 20.07.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, she was proceeded ex parte .

¶16

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Umesh Sharma, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-9. 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.50.00 Lacs and on 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.81,31,457.66/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.81,31,457.66/- (Rupees Eighty One Lacs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Sixty Six Only) with interest @14.45% per annum with monthly rests from 30.05.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶17

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 04.09.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated stocks, book debts 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 party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 29.07.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶18

MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mariyama Bano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mariyama Bano

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

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd.Aarif

Punjab National Bank versus Sanjeev Kumar

Idbi Bank versus Dilpreet Singh

Mr Smirithy Sourab Shyamal And Anr. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Shahar Abdul Jabbar versus South Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Ganpati Ji Mini Rice Mill and others