Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mir Decorations

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.66,25,501.96 under the RDB Act. The order affirmed the bank's evidence of loans, interest liability, and disposed of the ex parte application by directing recovery via mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Directions to distribute sale proceeds of mortgaged property as per Section 19(20-AB) of the Act. Recovery Certificate issued to Debt Recovery Officer. Parties to appear for distribution.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mir… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 5/2025 Date of Institution: 23.12.2024 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Ganderbal Beehama Ganderbal. Jammu and Kashmir.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Mir Decorations, a Proprietorship Concern, at Beehama Chowk, Ganderbal, (Jammu and Kashmir), through its Proprietor Shri Mohammad Amin Mir son of Shri Ali Mohammad Mir.

¶8

Shri Mohammad Amin Mir son of Shri Ali Mohammad Mir, Proprietor of M/s Mir Decorations, Resident of Beehama Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶9

Shri Ali Mohammad Mir son of Shri Abdul Gani Mir, Resident of Beehama Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶10

Shri Peer Asrar Ahmad son of Shri Peer Lateef Shah, Resident of Nagraypora Beehama Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 16.07.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.66,25,501.96p with interest from 23.12.2024.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.66,25,501.96p with interest against M/s Mir Decorations and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that Defendant no.1 is banking with Applicant Bank since the year 2015 and availed Cash Credit Limit of Rs.31.00 Lacs. On 06.06.2020, it had granted a loan of Rs.6.96Lacs to defendant

¶18

¶19

No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of GECL Limit for Business purpose. On 15.06.2020, at the request of Defendant nos.1 and 2, Applicant Bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from Rs.31.00Lacs to Rs.49.00Lacs. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit of Rs.49.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). On 23.11.2021, the bank granted a G.E.C.L. 2.0 Limit of Rs.4.94Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2. The loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 30.11.2024, a sum of Rs.66,25,501.96p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 10.01.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.07.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bhasin, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-27. 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 30.11.2024, a sum of Rs.66,25,501.96p (i.e. Rs.54,04,658.97p in C.C. Limit ; Rs.6,40,360.99p in the G.E.C.L. and Rs.5,80,782/- in G.E.C.L. 2.0) was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.66,25,501.96p (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred One and Paise Ninety Six Only) i.e. Rs.54,04,658.97p in C.C. Limit with interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests;

¶22

¶23

Rs.6,40,360.99p in the G.E.C.L. with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.5,80,782/- in G.E.C.L. 2.0 with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests from 23.12.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No. 4 would be to the extent of amount due in the C.C. Limit whereas liability of defendant Nos.1 to 3 would be joint and several for the whole decretal amount. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged properties fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶27

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

¶28

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 28.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mir Decorations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Mir Decorations

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

Punjab National Bank versus Radhey Shyam Trading Company

Mr Prakash Shankar Naidu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Babbar Brothers HUF

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus Mr. Amal Paul Prop. of Shibnath Marketing @ Mr Amal Pal and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus Asha M R

Hdfc Bank versus Malkit Singh