Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/1546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of ₹78,65,839.49p with interest against the defendants who failed to repay a term overdraft facility.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹78,65,839.49p with interest at 15.50% p.a. from 08.07.2022, joint and several liability of defendants, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1546/2022 Date of Institution: 08.07.2022 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Amira Kadal, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Mohammad Afzal Sheikh, Registered Office at CD-662, Bonizal, Haripora, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶8

Mr. Mohammad Afzal Sheikh s/o Ghulam Qadir Sheikh, r/o Bonizal, Haripora, Kangan, Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Lovish proxy counsel for Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 03.08.2023 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹78,65,839.49p with interest @15.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.07.2022.

¶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 ₹78,65,839.49p with interest against M/s Mohammad Afzal Sheikh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 08.03.2019, it had granted a loan of ₹50.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of Term Overdraft Facility for 30 days for Business purpose. The loan was chargeable to interest @15.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.04.2022, a sum of ₹78,65,839.49p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

¶18

On 28.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.08.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. 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-4. 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 loan of ₹50.00 Lacs and on 30.04.2022, a sum of ₹78,65,839.49p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹78,65,839.49p (Rupees Seventy Eight Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine and Paise Forty Nine Only) with interest @15.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.07.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds 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. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 17.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh

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

State Bank of India versus Partha Chakraborty and Ors.

Sri Dorai Swamy versus Shimsha Sahakari Bank Niyamithsa

Mr Manjunath B versus Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Gurmit Kaur

State Bank of India versus M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary Concern, Acting through Its Proprietor Ahri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

Sri. v. Benjamin versus State Bank of India