Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole Prop. of M/S Riyaz and Brothers)

DRT7 Jul 2026TA/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal examined a suit filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. for recovery of dues from borrowers. After verifying evidence of loan enhancements and security documents, the tribunal held the bank proved its case and allowed recovery of Rs.85,06,339.37 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.85,06,339.37 with interest at 12% per annum from 29.12.2016 is allowed with costs. Recovery Certificate to be issued. Direction for sale of mortgaged property given to Recovery Officer.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Riyaz Ahmad Tantary… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 11/2024

¶4

Date of Institution: 29.12.2016 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026

¶5

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. B/u Seelu Sopore District Baramulla. ...Applicant

¶6

¶7

1. Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole prop. of M/s Riyaz & Brothers) S/o Lt. Abdul Kabir Tantary R/o Gund Brath Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla. (Borrower/Proprietor/Mortgagor)

¶8

1. Mohammad Akbar Tantary S/o Lt. Abdul Kabir Tantary R/o Gund Brath Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla. (Mortgagor/Guarantor)

¶9

…Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Mr. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. None for defendants.

¶12

TA for the Recovery of Rs.85,06,339.37/- with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 29.12.2016.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 29.12.2016, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.85,06,339.37/-, along with interest against Sh. Riyaz Ahmad Tantary and another (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sopore. However, vide order dated 22.01.2024, this suit was transferred by the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 05.07.2000, it had granted a Cash Credit Loan Facility of Rs.75,000/- to defendant No.1 for business purpose. On 26.06.2003, the loan facility was enhanced to Rs.1.15 lacs; on 29.08.2007, the loan facility was further enhanced to Rs.2.50 lacs; on 02.05.2008, the loan facility was further enhanced to Rs.4.00 lacs; on

¶16

¶17

04.05.2011, the loan facility was further enhanced to Rs.8.00 lacs; the loan facility was further enhanced to Rs.17.00 lacs; on 19.02.2013, the loan facility was further enhanced to Rs.50.00 lacs and on 23.05.2014, defendant No.1 was sanctioned an ad hoc facility of Rs.10.00 lacs for a period of ninety days above the existing Cash Credit Loan Facility of Rs.50.00 lacs. To secure the loan facility, defendant No.1 had hypothecated his assets (fully detailed in Annexure-B) and defendant No.1 and 2 had mortgaged their land measuring 05 Kanals and 12 Marlas (fully detailed in Annexure-C). The loan facility was chargeable to different rate of interest as per the enhancements with monthly rests. On 31.10.2016, a sum of Rs.85,06,339.37/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

¶18

On 19.05.2017, Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, wherein they alleged if the defendant was a “Bakaya Daar” of the bank, then how did it advance more to the defendant without recovering the alleged outstanding. Defendants state that if they were the defaulters (allegedly) how and why the bank had advanced more money. The defendants also pleaded that they are uneducated persons belonging to a rural area and were unaware of the nature and contents of the documents executed by them. They alleged that their thumb impressions and signatures had been obtained by the Bank on blank papers. They further submitted that the default, if any, was never wilful.

¶19

On 01.04.2024, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post. On 27.11.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial. The defendants perused documents and admitted their signatures on documents but denied the contents thereof.

¶20

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Dar, Senior Executive Law along with the Cash Credit loan facility and original security documents. 6. 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 Cash Credit loan facility of Rs.60.00 lacs and on 31.10.2016, a sum of Rs.85,06,339.37/- was due. 7. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.85,06,339.37/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lacs Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Nine and Paise Thirty-Seven Only) with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 29.12.2016 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 by the sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged property (fully detailed in Annexure-B and C, respectively) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶22

8.	Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
9.	Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
10.	Parties are directed to appear before	Recovery Officer on
07.08	.2026,who is directed to distribute the	sale proceeds of the
hypo	thecated assets and mortgaged property as	per the provisions of
Secti	on 19(20-AB) of the Act.
11.	A Copy of this order along with Recovery	Certificate be sent to
the R	ecovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pron Dated HARSH	ounced in the open court. : 07.07.2026	(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole Prop. of M/S Riyaz and Brothers)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole Prop. of M/S Riyaz and Brothers)

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 Smt. Meenu Arora

Punjab National Bank versus Balwinder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Kiran Sao Rai

Harpreet Kaur versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/S Japji Filling Station versus Bank of Baroda

M S Shiv Shakti Udyog versus Bank of Baroda