Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mr. Sandeep Sharma

DRT20 Jan 2025TA/2079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II, Delhi allowed an original application filed by Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd against a borrower and five guarantors. The court accepted unchallenged evidence proving the outstanding dues. A decree for payment of the principal amount with interest was passed, splitting liability for some guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay jointly and severally a sum of ₹13,03,161.99 with interest @ 13.75% p.a., restricting liability of respondents 3 & 4 to ₹7,50,000.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mr. Sandeep Sharma — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

-E

¶2

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding^Officer Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶3

TAl2079l2023

¶4

JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK UMITED^{VS MR. SANDEEP} SHARMA &ORS

¶5

:O4.L2.2O24

¶6

Reserved on :O4.L2.2O24 Pronounced on : 20.01.2025

¶7

The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd

¶8

-^{Applicant bank}

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Sharma

¶11

lGmarjeet Pal

¶12

Rattan PalSharma

¶13

Jaswant Sharma

¶14

Neeru Sharma

¶15

-Defendants

¶16

Present: Mr. Nikhil Rawat, Counsel for applicant bank along with Mr. Aftab Ahmed, AR of the applicant bank. Defendants are ex-parte since 18.07.2019.

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 01.06.2015 through Sh.^Rafi Ahmad Mir, Principal Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant nos. 1 to 5 for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,03,161.99 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 13.75^o/o p.a. from the date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no. 1, the applicant bank sanctioned, in 2003 a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.3.40 Lac for urgent need of rhof t"2 finance to meet EX

.-l9

TA NO. 2079/2023

financial exigency. The defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 executed Deed of Guarantee -on 24.L2.2003 and become the guarantor for the repayment of the facility amount. In order to avail the said loan facility the defendant no.1 has executed relevant loaning documents. The defendant no.1 again approached to the applicant bank in the year of 2004. for enhancement of the cash credit limit from Rs.3.40 lacs to Rs.7.50 lacs. Accordingly, the defendant no.1 executed security documents. The defendant nos. 2 to 5 executed Deed of Guarantee on 18.05.2004 and became guarantor. The defendant no.l had again approached the applicant bank for the renewaUenhancement of the cash credit limit from Rs.7.50 lacs to sum of Rs.10 lacs in the year 2009 and the relevant documents executed by the defendants in favour of applicant bank. The defendant nos. 2 and 5 executed Deed of Guarantee on 04.11.2009 by extending their personal guarantee for the repayment of the above said facility. Thereafter from 2009 the facility continuing and were renewed lastly in the year 2012. At the time of renewal of the faciliUes the defendant no.1 provided his personal statement.

¶24

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, hence the account was classified as NPA on 16.07.2013. Thus, the present O.M[A is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶25

'../' a

¶26

TA NO. 207912023 3

¶27

On notice by this Tribunal,defendants^failed to put appearance at all despite^{publication and} accordingly defendants were^{proceededagainst} exparte on 18.07.2019.

¶28

The applicant bank has filed its evidence by^way of affidavit of Mr. Randhir Kotwal, Branch Head^as Paper no. 1 to 125 which have^gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant^bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non^payment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶29

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has^proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents and evidence filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not^placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence flled by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶30

In the light of the above discussions, the T.A deserves to be allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 5 to^{pay jointly} and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.13,03,161.99 along with cost, expenses and interest @ 13.75olo. However, the liability of defendant nos.3 and 4 restricted up to the

¶33

€^

¶34

TA NO. 207912023 4

¶35

limit of Rs.7.50 lacs from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of^realization.

¶36

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall^be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1 to 5.

¶37

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and^be sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶38

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the^same to both the^parties.

¶39

Parties are direct to appear before the^Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 20.03.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

File be consigned to records.

¶41

Date : 20.01.2025

¶42

9\ ' \ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶43

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶44

Date : 20.01.2025

¶45

rA .J-,(, (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶46

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mr. Sandeep Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mr. Sandeep Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases