Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Sharafat Fruit Company

DRT24 Aug 2026OA/1663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of ₹87,38,762.35 plus interest against the borrower and guarantors. The bank successfully proved the loan advance and outstanding dues, leading to a joint and several liability order.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹87,38,762.35 plus interest @9.50% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; joint and several liability declared.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sharafat Fruit… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1663/2023 Date of Institution: 16.08.2023 Date of Decision: 24.08.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Yaripora, Kulgam, District Kulgam, Jammu & Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Sharafat Fruit Company, Mechewa Yaripora Kulgam, District Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir through its proprietor Mr. Arshid Ahmad Bhatt.

¶8

Mr. Arshid Ahmad Bhatt S/o Ab. Gani Bhat R/o Mechewa, Yaripora, Kulgam Sole proprietor of M/s Sharafat Fruit Company.

¶9

Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat S/o Mr. GH Mohammad Bhat, R/o Manchewa.

¶10

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat S/o Mohd. Yousuf Bhat, R/o Mechewa, Yaripora, Kulgam.

¶11

Mohd. Altaf Malik S/o Mohd. Ismail Malik, R/o Mechewa, Yaripora, Kulgam.

¶12

Ab. Gani Bhat (alias Gani) S/0 Ghulam Rasool Bhat (alias Rasool) R/O Machewa Yaripora Kulgam.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Saurabh Goyal proxy counsel for Mr. Suresh Goyal through VC, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶16

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 10.09.2025 .

¶17

OA for the Recovery of ₹87,38,762.35p with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 16.08.2023.

¶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 ₹87,38,762.35p with interest against M/s Sharafat Fruit Company and others (defendants).

¶20

¶21

Bank’s case is that on 22.03.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹7.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 in the form of S.O.D. Limit under J.K. Banks Apple Scheme for Business purpose. On 27.02.2013, the limit was enhanced to ₹15.00Lacs. On 18.03.2014, the limit was enhanced to ₹30.0Lacs. On 25.03.2016, the limit was enhanced to ₹50.00Lacs. On 10.02.2017, bank sanctioned W.C.T.L. of ₹10.06Lacs to the defendants. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 and 6 had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.5.7 and 5.24 of the application). Defendant nos.3 and 4 stood as the guarantors vide deeds of guarantee dated 22.03.2012, 02.03.2013, 05.03.2014. Defendant nos. 3 to 5 stood as the guarantor vide deed dated 08.03.2016 and 11.02.2017. The loan was chargeable to interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests. The defendants had acknowledged their liability towards the debt by executing a D.P. Note on 21.09.2020. On 30.06.2023, a sum of ₹87,38,762.35p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶22

On 10.10.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 10.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶23

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bhasin, Assistant Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-42. 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 loans under different schemes and on 30.06.2023, a sum of ₹87,38,762.35p was due.

¶24

¶25

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹87,38,762.35p (Rupees Eighty Seven Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two and Paise Thirty Five Only) with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 16.08.2023, 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. 6 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 5.

¶26

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶28

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.09.2026.

¶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: 17.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Sharafat Fruit Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Sharafat Fruit Company

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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises