Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Royal Saw Mills — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
DRT
2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Royal Saw Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Royal Saw Mills

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Royal Saw Mills

DRT10 Sept 2026OA/1326/2024

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED versus M/S ROYAL SAW MILLS

P.o delivered 6,005 reported orders in 2026.

Filed as

Final Order2026

A

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA No: 1326/2024

Date of Institution: 25.04.2024 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, branch situated at Handwara Main, Jammu and Kashmir.

…Applicant

Vs.

M/s Royal Saw Mills, Office at Baghatora, Handwara, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir - 193222

Mr. Mohammad Suhail Sofi S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi R/o Rajwar Road, Handwara, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir - 193221

Mr. Mohammad Haris Sofi S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi R/o Handwara, Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir – 193221 Also at: - Barzulla Bagath, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir - 190005

Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Sofi S/o Ghullam Ahmad Sofi R/o Main Chowk Handwar, District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir 193221

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: DRT
Decided on: 10 Sept 2026 · September
Case no.: OA/1326/2024
CNR: 040110009112024

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P.o

State Bank of India versus M/s Baba Enterprises
9 Sept 2026
Bank of Baroda versus M/s Maa Durga Paints
9 Sept 2026
Bank of Baroda versus M/s Union Paints
9 Sept 2026
Sardul Singh versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited
10 Sept 2026

Cite this judgement

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Royal Saw Mills, OA/1326/2024 (DRT), decided on 10 September 2026.

The Debt Recovery Tribunals publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Malla S/o Late Mohammad Sultan Malla R/o Batagund, Handwar, District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir.

…Defendants

Advocates

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Defendants – ex parte .

OA for the Recovery of Rs.31,18,711.50p with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 25.04.2024.

ORDER

On 25.04.2024Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.31,18,711.50p with interest against M/s Royal Saw Mills and others (defendants).

2

Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm; defendant No.2 is its sole proprietor and defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the guarantors. Bank’s case is that on 01.02.2018, it had granted a Composite Loan Facility of Rs. 26.40 lacs - Term Loan Facility of Rs.15.21 lacs and Working Capital/ Cash Credit Facility of Rs.11.19 lacs to defendant No.1, through its proprietor, for business purpose. To secure the loan, defendant No.1, through its proprietor, had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 had mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.5.11 of the application). Defendant Nos.3 to 5 stood as Guarantors for the above facility vide Guarantee Deed dated 02.03.2018. The loan was chargeable to interest @18% per annum with monthly rests. The defendants had acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 01.02.2021 and 02.09.2021. On 29.02.2024, a sum of Rs.31,18,711.50p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

On 23.09.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 22.05.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ashish Bhasin, Law Officer, along with the loan and security documents. 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 a Composite Loan Facility of Rs. 26.40 lacs and on 29.02.2024, a sum of Rs.31,18,711.50p (Term Loan: Rs.15,72,372.18p; Working Capital/Cash Credit facility: Rs.15,46,339.32p) was due.

6.	Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of
Rs.31	,18,711.50p (Rupees Thirty-One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Seven

3

Hundred Eleven and Paise Fifty Only) with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 25.04.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.5.11 of the application) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 13.10.2026 .

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: 10.09.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Bench

Smt. Anjali Devi versus Uco Bank

10 Sept 2026

Ms. Bhagvati versus Development Finance Corporation Limited

10 Sept 2026