Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shri Mohd. Shakeel

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/1043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹37,07,175.45 plus interest held due by the principal borrower and guarantor after deeming evidence proving the advance and default.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹37,07,175.45 with interest @11.35% per annum with monthly rests from 28.05.2023; joint and several liability; sale of movable and immovable property.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shri Mohd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1043/2023 Date of Institution: 28.05.2023 Date of Decision: 18.02.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Rajouri Main Branch, Opposite Tehsil Office, Main Bazar, Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shri Mohd. Shakeel son of Shri Said Mohd., Resident of House No. 23, Ward No. 1, Nowshera, Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶8

Shri Nazarat Hussain son of Shri Mohd. Munshi, Resident of Ward No.

¶9

3, Kheora Near District Hospital, Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 05.08.2024 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹37,07,175.45p with interest @11.35% per annum with monthly rests from 28.05.2023. ORDER

¶14

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 ₹37,07,175.45p with interest against Shri Mohd. Shakeel and others (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 28.06.2022, it had granted a loan of ₹36.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 under JK Bank Sohuliat/Saral Finance Scheme for personal purpose. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide deed of guarantee dated 28.06.2022. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.35% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.03.2023, a sum of ₹37,07,175.45p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

On 17.07.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.08.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶18

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bhasin, Authorized 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 ₹36.00 Lacs and on 31.03.2023, a sum of ₹37,07,175.45p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹37,07,175.45p (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Seven Thousand One
Hundred Seventy Five and Paise Forty Five Only) with interest
@11.35% per annum with monthly rests from 28.05.2023, till the date of
payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the
defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of 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
30.03.2026,who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds 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: 18.02.2026 Presiding Officer
DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shri Mohd. Shakeel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shri Mohd. Shakeel

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s Singla Trading Company

Icici Bank Limited versus Satwant Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Jatinder Singh

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Simranjit Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt Davinder Kaur

Union Bank of India versus M/S Smile Dental Clinic and Ors.