Allowed

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

DRT4 Jul 2026TA/180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT adjudicated a suit by J&K Bank for recovery of approx. Rs. 6.35 crores advanced as secured overdraft and term loan facilities to respondents. Finding the bank proved its case, the claim was allowed, and parties were directed to appear before the Recovery Officer for realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 6,35,06,446.53 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Appearance before Recovery Officer directed.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mir Constructions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 180 of 2023 Date of Institution: 31.10.2020 Date of Decision: 04.07.2026

¶4

The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., B/U Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar, through its Assistant Vice President Law Mr. Mohammad Mubashir Mufti.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Mir Constructions, Hyderpora, Srinagar B.O Baramulla, Kashmir through its partners/ defendant nos.2 and 3.

¶7

Ghulam Hassan Sheikh S/o Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, R/o Housing Colony Sanat Nagar, Srinagar.

¶8

Khhursheed Ahmed Mir S/o Muhammad Yaqoob Mir, r/o Boniyar, Baramulla, Kashmir.

¶9

Tahir Amin Mir S/o Mohammed Shafi Mir, R/o Boniyar Uri.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - Ex parte. TA for the Recovery of Rs.6,35,06,446.53p with interest from 01.09.2020. ORDER 1. On 31.10.2020, J & K Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.6,35,06,446.53p with interest against M/s Mir Constructions and Others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar. However, vide order dated 22.02.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 19.04.2010, it had granted Secured Overdraft Facility of Rs.164.50 lacs to defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3 for business purpose. To secure the loan,

¶13

¶14

Defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3 had mortgaged the immovable property i.e. 15 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land falling under Khasra No.400 min, Khewat No.130 and Khata No.259 situated at Khushal Pora Baramulla {fully detailed in para No.6(b) of the application}. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rests.

¶15

2(i). Thereafter, on 17.02.2011, at the request of defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3, bank had renewed/enhanced from Rs.164.50 lacs to Rs.270.00 lacs. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the said loan facility of Rs.270.00 lacs, Defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3 had mortgaged the immovable property {fully detailed in para No.8{c(b)} of the application}.

¶16

2(ii). Again, on 03.08.2012, at the request of defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3, bank had renewed the said secured overdraft facility of Rs.270.00 lacs and had granted an adhoc facility of Rs.30.00 lacs.

¶17

2(iii). Thereafter, at the request of defendants, bank had

¶18

renewed/enhanced the credit facilities to the defendants and lastly, on 04.02.2017, at the request the defendant no.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3, bank had renewed/enhanced the WCTL Limit of Rs.49.40 lacs, WCDL of Rs.20.25 lacs, CTL of Rs.24.33 lacs and moratorium period of 18 months in respect of payment of interest in existing Working Capital (CC/SOD) w.e.f. September, 2016 and moratorium of 16 months in respect of payment of installments in Term Loan including CTLs. w.e.f. September, 2016. The said loan WCTL and CTL facilities were charged @9.50% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the said loan facilities, defendant no.1 through its partners

¶19

¶20

defendant nos.1 and 2 had created hypothecation of assets and also created mortgage of the immovable property, fully detailed in para no.18 (e) of the application.

¶21

2(iv). On 06.04.2012, at the request of defendant no.3, in his individual capacity, bank had granted Term Loan of Rs.10.00 lacs for purchase of vehicle bearing Registration No.JK01S3722. Defendant nos.2 and 4 stood as guarantors vide executed deed of guarantee dated 12.04.2012 as Annexure-XXV11. On 31.08.2020, a total sum of Rs.6,35,06,446.53p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶22

On 31.03.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 14.10.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶23

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Mubashir Mufti, Assistant Vice President, along with the 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 different loan facilities and on 31.08.2020, a total sum of Rs.6,35,06,446.53p was due.

¶24

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of Rs.6,35,06,446.53p (Rupees Six Crore Thirty Five Lacs Six Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six And Paisa Fifty Three Only) with interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Out of which, Rs.6,33,86,516.53p due in different credit facilities shall be paid by defendant nos.1 to 3

¶25

¶26

jointly and severally and Rs.1,19,930/- due in Term Loan/ Car Loan shall be paid by defendant nos.2 to 4 jointly and severally. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecation of assets/stock/goods and vehicle and also created mortgage of the immovable property (ies), fully detailed in para no.18(e) of the application/ property A & B as well as 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 05.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property (ies) and hypothecated goods/stocks/vehicle 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: 04.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Manjunath Tradar versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Travel Easy

Icici Bank Limited versus Murali

Hdfc Bank versus Farooq Ahmad Bhat

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Gopi Traders

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Bhagwant Singh