Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt Ranjit Kaur

DRT13 Jul 2026OA/149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During an ex parte hearing, the Tribunal affirmed the bank's proof of loan advances and approved the application for recovery of dues along with interest, directing issuance of a recovery certificate for sale of properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.25,65,210.58/- with interest allowed; joint and several liabilities upheld; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Smt Ranjit Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 149/2023 Date of Institution: 17.10.2020 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. B/u Zoonimar, Srinagar. ...Applicant Vs. 1. M/s Noorani Garments, Sangeen Darwaza, Hawal, Srinagar, through defendant No 2. 2. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din-Bhat S/o Abdul Ahad Bhat R/o Sangeen Darwaza, Srinagar. (BORROWER) 3. Mohammad Rafiq Bhat S/o Late Abdul Aziz Bhat R/o Goni-Khan, Amirakadal, Srinagar. 4. Ghulam Jeelani Neeka S/o Ali Mohammad Neeka R/o Aquilmir Khanyar, Srinagar. 5. Abdul Rashid Pandaw S/o Abdul Rehman Pandaw R/o Buchwara, Dalgate, Srinagar. 6. Abdul Rehman Sheikh S/o Late Mohammad Subhan Sheikh R/o Khanyar, Srinagar. (GUARANTORS) ...Defendants Advocates Sh. PS Sobti, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte. TA for the Recovery of Rs.25,65,210.58/- with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 17.10.2020. ORDER 1. On 17.10.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.25,65,210.58/- with interest against M/s Noorani Garments and others (defendants) in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 07.12.2022, this suit was

¶5

¶6

transferred by the Court of the Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶7

Bank’s case is that on 31.05.2008, it had granted a Cash Credit facility of Rs.4.00 lacs to defendant No.1, through its proprietor for business purpose. To secure the loan, defendant No.1, through its proprietor had hypothecated its assets (fully detailed in Para No.4 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as Guarantors for the above Cash Credit facility (Guarantee Deed attached to the plaint as Annexure P-10). The Cash Credit facility was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 07.09.2012, Bank had granted a Consumption Loan facility of Rs.3.70 lacs to defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 stood as Guarantors for the above Consumption Loan facility (Guarantee Deed attached to the plaint as Annexure P-16). On 01.07.2020, a sum of Rs.25,65,210.58/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit. 3. On 21.11.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 18.09.2024, they were proceeded ex parte. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmad Shara, Executive Law, along with the loan and original 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 the Cash Credit facility of Rs.4.00 lacs to defendant No.1, through its proprietor

¶8

¶9

and a Consumption Loan facility of Rs.3.70 lacs to defendant No.2 and on 01.07.2020, a sum of Rs.25,65,210.58/- was due.

¶10

Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.25,65,210.58/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs Sixty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Ten and Paise Fifty-Eight Only) with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 17.10.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.1 to 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in the C.C. Limit. The liability of Defendant Nos.2, 4 to 6 would be joint and several for the amount due in Consumption Loan Facility. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Para No.4 of the plaint), as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶11

7.	Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8.	Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9.	Parties are directed to appear before	Recovery Officer on
13.08.	2026,who is directed to distribute the	sale proceeds of the
mortg	aged property as per the provisions of Sec	tion 19(20-AB) of the
Act.
10.	A Copy of this order along with Recovery	Certificate be sent to
the Re	covery Officer as well as the parties.
Prono Dated: HARSH	unced in the open court. 13.07.2026	(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

Union Bank of India v. Smt Ranjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt Ranjit Kaur

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/S Hayat Agency

Hdfc Bank versus Kothari Plastics

Bank of Baroda versus M/s City Automobiles

Jittu Kumar versus Indian Bank

Marjem Sk versus Bandhan Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Sh. Vardeep Singh Sodhi