Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Dev Alloys

DRT18 Jun 2025TA/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's appeal for recovery of approximately Rs. 4.29 crores plus interest. The court held continuing partners and guarantors liable for the full amount, while limiting liability of a retiring partner to specific loan facilities. Recovery certificate was issued with directions to the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 4,29,15,310.36 with interest at 14.75% p.a. allowed. Recovery certificate issued. Sale of mortgaged properties directed.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Dev Alloys — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 57 of 2024 Date of Institution: 07.08.2014 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025

¶4

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., having its Registered Office at Corporate Zonal Office, M.A. Road, Srinagar and Zonal Office at Rail Head Complex, Jammu.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

¶7

M/s Dev Alloys, Bian Attarian, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, a partnership firm through its partner Sh. Davinder Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, R/o 191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶8

Sh. Davinder Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, R/o House No.191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu

¶9

Smt. Harmeet Kaur W/o Sh. Davinder Singh, R/o House No.191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu

¶10

Charan Pal Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, R/o House No.191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶11

Smt. Anita Rani W/o Sh. G.M. Sharma, R/o House No.117, Sector 17, Huda Jagadari, Haryana.

¶12

S. Kehar Singh S/o S. Dayal Singh, R/o House No.191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu

¶13

Sh. Tarlochan Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, R/o House No.191, Sector 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶14

Sh. Pawan Deep Singh S/o Late S. Anoop Singh, R/o House No.1813-F, Shastri Nagar, Jammu.

¶15

………. Defendants

¶16

Advocates

¶17

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- Ex parte.

¶18

TA for the Recovery of Rs.4,29,15,310.36p with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the suit i.e. 07.08.2014.

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

On 07.08.2014, J & K Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.4,29,15,310.36p with interest against M/s Dev Alloys and others (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. Vide order dated 02.05.2023, Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶22

Bank’s case is that on 25.04.2009, it had granted Term Loan of Rs.256.00 lacs and Cash Credit of Rs.96.00 lacs, totaling Rs.352.00 lacs, to defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 to 5 for business purpose. Defendant nos.7 and 8 stood as guarantors vide guarantee deed of 04.06.2009 (Annexures A-24 to A-25). To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 to 5 mortgaged their immovable properties and hypothecated plant and machinery and stocks (fully detailed in para Nos.3 and 4 of the plaint/ A-14 to A-20). In addition to that, defendant nos.6 also mortgaged his immovable property (fully detailed in para no.5 of the plaint/ A-21 to A-22). The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests.

¶23

2(i). Again, on 25.11.2011, at the request of defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 to 4, bank granted Adhoc Credit Facility of Rs.30.00 lacs to defendant no.1 for business purpose. To secure the said loan facility, defendant no.4 executed further mortgage/ extension of charge dated 15.12.2011 of his immovable property (fully detailed in para no.7 of the plaint/ A-34). Defendant nos.7 and 8 stood as guarantors vide deed of guarantee dated 15.12.2011 as Annexure A-35 to A-37. On 31.07.2014, a sum of Rs.4,29,15,310.36p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶24

¶25

The, Civil Court, sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. Defendants did not put in appearance, before Civil Court, which proceeded ex parte against them. 3(i). The record reveals that written statement on behalf of defendant nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 was filed before the Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu wherein they alleged that the suit of the applicant bank has not been filed by an authorized person; the signatures were obtained on blank papers; the statement of account annexed with the suit has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1977.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Smt. Raj Shree, Executive Manager Law, along with the loan and security documents. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Defendant nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 have led no evidence to prove the pleas raised in their written statement. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the Term Loan of Rs.256.00 lacs, Cash Credit of Rs.96.00 lacs and Adhoc Credit Facility of Rs.30.00 lacs. On 31.07.2014, a sum of Rs.4,29,15,310.36p was due i.e. Rs.2,05,22,022/in Term Loan and Rs.1,24,78,785.36p in Cash Credit Facility plus unapplied interest of Rs.99,14,503/-.

¶27

5(i). It is pertinent to mention that, vide supplementary loan agreement dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure A-32), executed between the applicant bank and Sh. Devender Singh, Harmeet Kaur and Charanpal Singh, it was stated as follows:-

¶28

“Now the credit/loan facilities which they have availed
jointly and executed all the loan documents in favour
of bank by four partner and now the remaining of
three partners 1) Devinder Singh 2) Harmeet Kaur 3)

¶29

¶30

Charanpal Singh shall confirm and takeover all the assets and liabilities of firm and share of Anita Rani shall also take over by 1) Devinder Singh 2) Harmeet Kaur 3) Charanpal Singh, and we are agreeing that all the documents already executed and securities already created in favour of bank to secure the loan facilities availed by the firm shall continue to be subsisting and binding upon the continuing partners as if the said documents had been executed by the continuing partners only.”

¶31

5(ii). By signing the above agreement (Annexure A-32), the bank has consented to the terms and the stipulations mentioned in the agreement. In view of this, defendant No. 5/ Anita Rani, is not liable to pay the dues of the applicant bank, as defendant No. 1, through its partners defendant nos. 2 to 4 has taken over all the assets and liabilities of the firm, including the share of Anita Rani.

¶32

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of Rs.4,29,15,310.36p (Rupees Four Crore Twenty-Nine Lacs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten And Paisa Thirty-Six Only) with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the suit i.e. 07.08.2014, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Whereas, defendant nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 would be liable for whole of the decretal amount with interest and costs; the liability of defendant no.6 would be limited to the extent of amount due in Term Loan of Rs.256.00 lacs and Cash Credit facility of Rs.96.00 lacs along with interest and costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated plant and machinery and stocks, fully detailed in para Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 of the plaint, as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of all the defendants except defendant no.5/ Anita Rani.

¶33

7.	Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8.	Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶34

¶35

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 18.07.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property, hypothecated stocks and plant and machinery 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: 18^th June, 2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh (R. K. Singh, PS)

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Dev Alloys

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Dev Alloys

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

Mammu v versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Aniraj Chauhan

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Poonam Industries

Ms Ganesh Cold Storage versus Bank of Maharashtra

Ms Pacific Syntex and Another versus Punjab National Bank

Rama Sukla versus Idbi Bank