Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Faisal Fruit

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/579/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Chandigarh allowed Jammu and Kashmir Bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues. The court distinguished liability between guarantors and borrowers, ordered issuance of a recovery certificate, and directed future appearance of parties before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹25,18,336.27 with interest allowed; liability of guarantors limited to C.C. limit dues; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery Officer to distribute proceeds.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Faisal Fruit — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 579/2024 Date of Institution: 21.04.2023 Date of Decision: 27.03.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Charisharief, Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Faisal Fruit, Registered Office: - Charisharief Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶8

Mehraj Ud Din Bhat s/o Mohammad Abdullah, r/o Sadder Bazar, Chari Sharief, Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶9

Mr. Bashir Ahmad Sheikh s/o Abdul Gani Sheikh, r/o Trajibal, Chari Sharief, Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶10

Ghulam Mohammad Shah s/o Abdul Ahad Shah, r/o Chari Sharief, Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 11.08.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹25,18,336.27p with interest from 21.04.2023.

¶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 ₹25,18,336.27p with interest against M/s Faisal Fruit and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 01.01.2017, it had granted C.C Limit of ₹20.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant no.2 for Business purpose. To secure the aforementioned limit, Defendant No.2 being the proprietor of defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 4

¶18

¶19

stood as guarantors vide deed of guarantee dated 09.01.2017. Again on 01.06.2020, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted Term Loan under G.E.C.L. Scheme of ₹4.07Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. Both the loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.01.2023, a sum of ₹25,18,336.27p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 26.04.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 11.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bhasin, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-7.

¶22

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 total loan of ₹24.07 Lacs and on 31.01.2023, a sum of ₹25,18,336.27p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,18,336.27p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Twenty Seven Only) i.e. ₹21,65,771.28p in C.C. Limit with interest @11.80% p.a. and ₹3,52,564.99p in G.E.C.L. with interest @9.25% p.a. (both facilities) with monthly rests from 21.04.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.3 and 4 would be limited to clear the dues pending in C.C. Limit of ₹20.00Lacs, whereas liability of defendant nos. 1 and 2 would be joint and several and for the whole decretal amount. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in

¶23

¶24

para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 04.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 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: 27.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Faisal Fruit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Faisal Fruit

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 Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre