Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Khan Fruit Company (Erstwhile Name M/S Mohammad Sultan Khan)

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/1479/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the DRT's application filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited under the RDB Act for the recovery of ₹26,39,397.90p with interest. The court held that the bank had proved the loan was advanced, security was created, and defendants failed to repay despite summonses.

What did the court decide?

Adjudicated recovery of ₹26,39,397.90p with interest @18% per annum, directed recovery via sale of mortgaged property or personal assets of respondents, ordered issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Khan Fruit Company… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1479/2025 Date of Institution: 22.08.2025 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Rohama Rafiabad, Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Khan Fruit Company (erstwhile name M/s Mohammad Sultan Khan) Office at Rohama Rafiabad, Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶8

Mohammad Sultan Khan s/o Mohammad Jamal Khan, r/o Rohama Rafiabad, Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶9

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Lone s/o Ghulam Rasool Lone, r/o Langate, Handwara, District Kupwara, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶10

Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan s/o Mohammad Sultan Khan, r/o Rohama Rafiabad, Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir. ……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank along with Mr. Showkat Hussain, Banking Associate of the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 12.02.2026 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹26,39,397.90p with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 22.08.2025.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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 ₹26,39,397.90p with interest against M/s Khan Fruit Company and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 27.04.2011, it had granted a loan of ₹2.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit for Business purpose. On 04.04.2012, at the request of the defendants, bank renewed the C.C. Limit at ₹2.50 Lacs. Again on

¶17

¶18

23.03.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹2.50Lacs to ₹18.00Lacs. To secure the limit of ₹18.00 Lacs, Defendant No.2 being the proprietor of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the limit of ₹18.00 Lacs vide Deed of Guarantee dated 06.12.2017. The C.C. Limit was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with monthly rests. On 10.01.2018, at the request of defendant No.1, bank granted a Credit Card facility amounting to ₹50,000/- to defendant No.2. Again on 11.12.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank renewed the C.C. Limit at ₹18.00 Lacs. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 31.03.2014, 30.09.2020, 31.03.2022 and 29.12.2023. On 31.07.2025, a sum of ₹26,39,397.90p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 12.09.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 12.02.2026, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ricky Mahajan, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Mr. Showkat Hussain, Banking Associate of the applicant bank is present along with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same has been returned to him after perusal. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the total loan of ₹18.50 Lacs

¶21

¶22

and on 31.07.2025, a sum of ₹26,39,397.90p (₹25,71,120.85p in C.C. Limit and 68,277.05p in Credit Card facility) was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹26,39,397.90p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Ninety Only) with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 22.08.2025, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.1 to 4 would joint and several for the amount due in C.C. Limit. Defendant No.2 would be fully liable for the amount due in the Credit Card Account. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 22.09.2026. 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: 20.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Khan Fruit Company (Erstwhile Name M/S Mohammad Sultan Khan)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Khan Fruit Company (Erstwhile Name M/S Mohammad Sultan Khan)

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India