Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shafiq Ahmed Mayer

DRT25 Jun 2026TA/152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Chandigarh allowed the application filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank for recovery of ₹90,26,506/- with interest, holding the bank proved the loan and default. Application approved; recovery certificate issued; directions issued for mortgage sale. Liability declared joint and several.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹90,26,506/-. Recovery Certificate issued. Mortgage property sale directed under Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shafiq Ahmed Mayer — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 152/2023 Date of Institution: 17.03.2023 Date of Decision: 25.06.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited at B.U. Residency Road Srinagar.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shafiq Ahmed Mayer s/o Ghulam Nabi Mayer, r/o Iqbal Colony Shalteng Srinagar.

¶8

Nadeem Ahmed Mayer s/o Shafiq Ahmed Mayer, r/o Iqbal Colony Shalteng Srinagar.

¶9

Syed Manzoor Jalali s/o Syed Wajahat Jalali, r/o Mohalla Syed Afzal Sheri Bhat Hawal, Srinagar.

¶10

Ali Mohammad Rather s/o Ghulam Ahmed Rather, r/o Mufti Bagh Barji, Harwan, Srinagar.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Mr. Bharat Kawal proxy counsel for Sh. Manish Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶14

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 30.09.2024 .

¶15

TA for the Recovery of ₹90,26,506/- with interest from 29.06.2020.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

On 29.06.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹90,26,506/- with interest against Shafiq Ahmed Mayer and others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar. However, vide order dated 02.11.2022, the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶18

Bank’s case is that on 03.07.2007, it had granted Term Loan-I of ₹150.00 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). Again on 28.02.2013, at the request of the

¶19

¶20

defendants, bank granted Term Loan-II of ₹125.00 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for business purpose. To secure the Loans, defendant No.1 extended mortgage over his property (fully detailed in Para 3 of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for both the loan facilities.

¶21

2A. Again on 13.02.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank converted the amount outstanding into a Term Loan of ₹20.56 Lacs and ₹2.01 Lacs in Rehabilitation Account to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for Business purpose. To secure the Loans, defendant No.1 extended mortgage over his property. Defendant no. 4 stood as the guarantor. Both the loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. The defendants acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 27.12.2017. On 31.05.2020, a sum of ₹90,26,506/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶22

3. After receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, summonses were
sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, defendants did
not put in appearance and vide order dated 30.09.2024, they were proceeded_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmed Shera, Executive Law, along with the original loan and security documents.
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 31.05.2020, a sum of ₹90,26,506/- was due.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹90,26,506/(Rupees Ninety Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Six Only) ₹81,46,468/- in the Cash Credit Account with interest @15% per annum with monthly rests and ₹8,80,038/- in the Converted Term Loan Account with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.06.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability defendant nos. 1 to 3 would be joint and several for the amount due in the C.C Account and the liability defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in the Term Loan Account. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land/property fully detailed in para No.3 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶25

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 27.07.2026 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land/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: 25.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶26

MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shafiq Ahmed Mayer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shafiq Ahmed Mayer

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

Hdfc Bank versus Bhajan Singh

Canara Bank versus P Padmanabhan

Uco Bank versus Mr Abdul Rouf And Anr.

M/S Mahavir Food Products versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Pappu and Dipu Aloo Co.

Central Bank of India versus M/s Royal Metal