Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Hafiz Group of Marketing

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/1520/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 32,72,070.75 along with interest against the defendants. The court found the bank proved its case of loan advance and outstanding dues, ordering a joint and several liability recovery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 32,72,070.75 with interest at 10.85% p.a. till payment, costs, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Hafiz Group of… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1520/2022 Date of Institution: 09.06.2022 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Hafiz Group of Marketing Nowpora, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶8

Ms. Kulsoom Fatima d/o Gh. Mohd. Bhat, r/o 107, Mir Gali, Nowpora, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶9

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat s/o Mr. Gh. Rasool Bhat r/o Ward No.1, Nowpora, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶10

Ms. Zahida Bano d/o Rasool Mir, r/o Dachigam, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶11

Mr. Bashir Ahmad Wani s/o Mohd. Abdullah Wani r/o Ayathmulla, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶12

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat s/o Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, r/o Ward No.2, Plan Bandipora, Tehsil and District Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶13

Hafiza Hassan d/o Gh. Hassan Kuchhai, r/o 107, Mir Gali, Nowpora, Bandipora, Kashmir, (J&K).

¶14

……….Defendants

¶15

Advocates

¶16

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 08.09.2025 .

¶17

OA for the Recovery of Rs.32,72,070.75p with interest @10.85% per annum with monthly rests from 09.06.2022.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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 Rs.32,72,070.75p with interest against M/s Hafiz Group of Marketing and others (defendants).

¶20

¶21

Bank’s case is that on 09.07.2008, it had granted a loan of Rs.4.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through it proprietor defendant No.2 in the form of C.C. Limit for Business purpose. Again on 15.04.2014, the C.C. limit was enhanced from Rs.4.00 Lacs to Rs.10.00 Lacs. Again on 24.04.2014, bank granted another loan of Rs.5.00Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 in the form of Consumption Loan. Again on 01.06.2017, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs to Rs.20.00 Lacs. Again on 17.02.2017, bank granted a loan of Rs.2,39,219/- to defendant No.1 through it proprietor defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit for Business purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant No.7 had mortgaged her land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.3 to 6 stood as guarantors vide various deeds of guarantee dated 09.07.2008, 22.04.2014, 25.03.2014, 01.06.2017 and 18.02.2017. All the loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.32,72,070.75p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶22

On 26.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 08.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶23

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Umesh Sharma, Branch Manager along with the loan and security 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 Rs.32,72,070.75p was due.

¶24

¶25

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.32,72,070.75p (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Seventy and Paise Seventy Five Only) with interest @10.85% per annum with monthly rests from 09.06.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. No personal claim lies against Defendant no.7 being the mortgager. 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 defendant nos.1 to 6.

¶26

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶28

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.09.2026.

¶29

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶30

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Hafiz Group of Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Hafiz Group of Marketing

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

Rajinder Kaur Chhabra versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Axis Bank versus Sln Rice Mill Rep by Its Proprietor Mr. Shahwar Shariff

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication

Federal Bank versus Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sumit Ornament House

Union Bank of India versus Sh Raman Sharma and Ors.