Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Zahoor Ahmad Kumar

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/1425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Recovery of Debts Tribunal application, the applicant bank sought recovery of ₹36.74 lakhs with interest from a primary borrower and various guarantors after an ex parte proceeding. The tribunal found the bank proved its case, allowing the claim for the full amount apportioned among guarantors and allowing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹36,74,771.87 with interest allowed apportioned among guarantors; Recovery Certificate issued; parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer for distribution of sale proceeds.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1425 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 23.06.2022 Date of Decision: 17.04.2026

¶5

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. having its branches all over India and a branch at Qazigund, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Zahoor Ahmad Kumar s/o Abdul Ahad Kumar r/o Brinal Lammer, Qazigund.

¶9

Mohd. Hussain Lone s/o Ghulam Mohammad Lone r/o Qazigund.

¶10

Shabir Ahmad Lone s/o Haji Ghulam Mohammad Lone r/o Qazigund.

¶11

Sameer Ahmad Khan s/o Ghulam Qadir Khan r/o Sransoo, Qazigund.

¶12

Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie s/o Mohd. Subhan Ganie r/o ChekiBadwani, Qazigund.

¶13

Mohd Younis Bonya s/o Mohd Hussain Bonya r/o Kanchloo Kund, Qazigund.

¶14

Manzoor Ahmad Mir s/o Noor Mohd Mir r/o Sadura Anantnag.

¶15

……….Defendants

¶16

Advocates

¶17

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte .

¶18

OA for the Recovery of ₹ 36,74,771.87p with interest from 23.06.2022.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹ 36,74,771.87p with interest against Mr. Zahoor Ahmad Kumar and others (defendants).

¶21

Bank’s case is that on 09.06.2011, it had granted a loan of ₹2.00 Lacs in the form of C.C. Limit for business purpose which was enhanced to ₹16.00 Lacs on 20.03.2014. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 stood as

¶22

¶23

the guarantors. On 03.11.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹2.00Lacs in the form of K.C.C. for horticulture purpose. Defendant nos. 5 and 6 stood as the guarantors. On 09.02.2017, it had granted a loan of ₹3.69Lacs in the form of Term Loan (Rehabilitation Scheme). Defendant nos. 2 to 4 stood as the guarantors. On 08.08.2017, it had granted a loan of ₹12.00Lacs. Defendant no. 5 and 6 stood as the guarantors. In 2019, it had granted a consumption loan of ₹3.00Lacs. Defendant nos. 5 and 7 stood as the guarantors. All the Loan facilities were sanctioned to the Defendant no.1. To secure the loans, Defendant no. 1 had hypothecated stocks and mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para no.5.12 of the application). The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 23.06.2022, a sum of ₹ 36,74,771.87p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶24

On 01.08.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.02.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶25

4.	In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affida	vit of Mr. Umesh Sharma, Branch Manager along with the loan and
secur	ity documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10.
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 loans
under	various schemes and on 30.04.2022, a sum of ₹ 36,74,771.87p was
due.
6.	Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹36,7	4,771.87p (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Seven
Hund	red Seventy One and Eighty Seven Paise Only) i.e. ₹1784543/-

¶26

¶27

with interest @11.30% with monthly rests in Cash Credit (S.O.D.); ₹2,25,802/- with interest @7% with half-yearly rests in K.C.C. Limit; ₹13,07,262.67p with interest @7.3% with monthly rests in the Housing Loan; ₹1,67,058/- with interest @9.5% with monthly rests in term Loan (Rehabilitation Scheme); ₹1,90,106.20p with interest @13.50% with monthly rests in Consumption Loan from 23.06.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability Defendant nos. 2 to 4 would to the extent of amount in C.C. Limit and Term Loan (Rehabilitation Scheme). The liability of Defendant nos. 5 and 6 would to the extent of amount due in KC.C. Limit and Housing Loan. The liability of Defendant nos. 5 and 7 would be to the extent of amount due in the Consumption Loan. Defendant no. 1 would be liable for the whole decretal amount, jointly and severally with the respective defendants. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.5.12) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶28

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated stocks 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.

¶29

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 17.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Zahoor Ahmad Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Zahoor Ahmad Kumar

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

Hdfc Bank versus Milkha Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mohd. Arif Khan

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Satinder Singh

Smt Anniyamma versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Chandrappa

Canara Bank versus Sathish