Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Four Star Enterprises

DRT20 May 2026OA/292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by J&K Bank for recovery of approximately ₹75.32 lakhs with interest against M/s Four Star Enterprises and proprietor Mehraj U Din Yatoo, recording the debt as proved based on bank documents in the defendants' absence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹75,30,663.02 with interest @18% p.a. with monthly rests allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; liability declared joint and several.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 292/2022 Date of Institution: 27.12.2021 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Four Star Enterprises, r/o Near MET School Rawalpora, Bhagar Barzulla, through its proprietor Mehraj U Din Yatoo.

¶8

Mehraj U Din Yatoo s/o Mohammad Shaban Yatoo, r/o 115, BhagatBarzulla, Sanat Nagar, Srinagar (J&K).

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 05.03.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹75,30,663.02p with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 27.12.2021.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹75,30,663.02p with interest against M/s Four Star Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 07.03.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹50.00 Lacs under T.O.D. facility to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. The loan was chargeable to interest @18% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.11.2021, a sum of ₹75,30,663.02p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

On 07.04.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶17

¶18

put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.03.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Gupta, Law 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 Rs.50.00Lacs and on 30.11.2021, a sum of ₹75,30,663.02p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹75,30,663.02p (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three and Paise Two Only) with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 27.12.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues from 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 22.06.2026. 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: 20.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶20

MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Four Star Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Four Star Enterprises

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

M/S Mahavir Food Products versus Uco Bank

Gautam Kotwal versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

M S Home First Finance Company India Ltd. versus Dmi Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Gagandeep Singh

Akash Musaddi Proprietor of Mittal Trading Co. versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kaloo Ram @ Om Parkash