Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Lateef Ahmed Bapari

DRT4 May 2026TA/6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹42,67,493.15 plus interest advanced via term loan, cash credit, and credit card. The legal representatives of borrowers, who were absent, were held jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹42,67,493.15 plus interest at 12.40% per annum allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; recovery proceedings directed.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Lateef Ahmed Bapari — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 6 of 2024 Date of Institution: 07.09.2021 Date of Decision: 04.05.2026

¶4

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. at Business unit Dalgate Srinagar, 2. Naidyar Srinagar and 3. Khanyar, Srinagar.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Lateef Ahmed Bapari s/o Ghulam Rasool Bapari r/o Bagh Jogi Lanker, Rainawari Srinagar.

¶8

Shakeel Ahmed Bhat s/o Abdul Rasheed Bhat r/o Bagh Jogi Lanker, Rainawari Srinagar.

¶9

Owasi Ahmed Bhat s/o Abdul Ahad Bhat r/o Bagh Jogi Lanker, Rainawari Srinagar.

¶10

Ghulam Rasool Bapari s/o Ali Mohammad Bapari r/o Bagh Jogi Lanker, Rainawari Srinagar.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Counsel for the applicant bank. None for defendants.

¶14

TA for the Recovery of ₹42,67,493.15p with interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests from 07.09.2021.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

On 07.09.2021, J&K Bank Ltd., filed the suit for the recovery of ₹42,67,493.15p with interest against Lateef Ahmed Bapari an others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar. However, vide order dated 25.04.2023, this Suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 28.02.2018, it had granted a loan of ₹5.00Lacs to defendant no.1 in the form of Term Loan for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as the

¶18

¶19

guarantors. On 05.09.2018, Bank granted a loan of ₹40.00Lacs to defendant no.1 in the form of C.C. Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.4 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para no. 9 of the plaint.) Defendant no. 4 stood as the guarantor. On 07.04.2012, bank granted a Gold Credit Card of ₹1.00Lac to Defendant no.1 The loans were chargeable different rates of interest. On 01.09.2021, a sum of ₹42,67,493.15p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶20

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 23.11.2022, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmad Shera, Executive Manager Law, along with the loan and security documents.

¶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 loans under different schemes and on 01.09.2021, a sum of ₹42,67,493.15p (₹4,64,009/- in the Term Loan, ₹35,37,340.90p in the Cash Credit and ₹2,66,143.25p in the Credit Card Account) was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹42,67,493.15p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Frou Hundred and Ninety Three and Fifteen Paise Only) with interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests from 07.09.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant nos. 1 to 3 would be joint and several for the amount due in Term Loan Account, the liability of Defendant nos. 1 and 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in C.C. Limit and Defendant no.1 would be fully liable for

¶24

¶25

the amount due in Credit Card Account. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.9 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶26

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land 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: 04.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Lateef Ahmed Bapari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Lateef Ahmed Bapari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Vikas and Anr.

Canara Bank versus Sri.K. H. Pratheesh

Canara Bank versus Navanith

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Gurdhian Singh

State Bank of India versus Balvir Singh

State Bank of India versus Satpal Singh