Dismissed

Ms Ghumam Mohammad Zargar through proprietor Ghulam Mohammad Zargar v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

DRT28 Oct 2025SA/240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the notices were validly served and rejected the contention regarding service on a proprietorship concern where the proprietor was identified.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed; pending IAs disposed off.

Ms Ghumam Mohammad Zargar through proprietor Ghulam Mohammad… — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.240/2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH SA/240/2025 MIS GHULAM MOHAMMAD ZARGAR Vs \ A.O,JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK IMITED

¶3

28.10.2025 Item No.12

¶4

Present: Mr. Ashutosh Bajpai, Counsel for the Applicants. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Counsel for respondent Bank.

¶5

M/s Ghulam Mohammad Zargar and another (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited (Respondent).

¶6

Admittedly, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., had sanctioned C.C. Limit ofRs.23.14 Lacs and K.K.C. Limit ofRs.1.86 Lacs, in all amounting to Rs.25.00 Lacs to the Applicants. Apart from this, Bank had also sanctioned GECL of Rs.3.00 Lacs. On 28.06.2023, the account turned NPA. On 09.08.2023, the Bank had issued the notice under Section 13(2) and the same was dispatched on 09.08.2023. The notice was duly served upon the Applicants on 14.08.2023. Again the Bank had issued the notice under Section 13(4) on 20.04.2024 which was also delivered to the Applicants. On 27.09.2024, the Bank had issued the redemption notice which admittedly was served upon the Applicants. Thereafter, the Bank put up the property for auction. However, there was no bid. Applicants have filed the present SA challenging the notices under Section 13(2); 13(4) and auction notice. Admittedly, the auction did not take place. As far as service of noticcbundcr Scction 13(2) and 13(4) are concerned, the Bank has produced on the record tracking reports which show that noticcs were duly served upon the Applicants.

¶7

¶8

SA No.240/2025

¶9

Mr. Bajpai, counsel for the Applicants argues that the notice was not served upon Applicant No.l which is a proprietorship concern. It is admitted on the record that Applicant No.2 is the owner of the Applicant No.I.

¶10

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the contentions of the counsel for the Applicant. Having considered the all contentions, I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any are also stand disposed off accordingly.

¶11

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶12

DRT-1, Chandigarh Pronounced in open court Dated: 28.10.2025 PANKAJ

¶13

Ms Ghumam Mohammad Zargar through proprietor Ghulam Mohammad Zargar v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ghumam Mohammad Zargar through proprietor Ghulam Mohammad Zargar v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Aadinath Plastics

Canara Bank versus Harjit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Krishna Pratap Singh Chandel

Hdfc Bank versus Sunita Tayal

Sh Khusinder Singh versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank