Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mohammad Maqbool Dar

DRT30 Jul 2026TA/286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.60,24,331.37p plus interest. It directed joint and several liability of the borrower and portions of guarantors, while dismissing the claim against the proforma defendant.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.60,24,331.37p with interest @12% p.a.; joint and several liability for borrower and specific guarantees for guarantors; Recovery Certificate issued.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mohammad Maqbool Dar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 286/2023 Date of Institution: 23.05.2017 Date of Decision: 30.07.2026

¶4

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. B/u Awantipora.
...Applicant
Vs.
1. Mohammad Maqbool Dar
S/o Abdul Aziz Dar
R/o Shah Tokuna Malangpora, Pulwama.
Sole Proprietor of M/s Maqbool Automobiles.
2. Bashir Ahmad Dar S/o Abdul Aziz Dar
R/o Shah Tokuna Malangpora, Pulwama.
3. Mohammad Yousuf Dar S/o Mohammad Sultan Dar
R/o Dangerpora Padgampora, Pulwama.
4. Ghulam Mohammad Dar S/o Ghulam Ahmad Dar
R/o Dangerpora Padgampora, Pulwama.
5. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Farm Equipment Sector Mahindra
Towers, Ist floor Akurli Road, Kandival (E) Mumbai 400101,
India (Proforma Defendant).
...Defendants
Advocates
Ms. Anu Dhiman, proxy Counsel for Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for
the Applicant Bank.
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 – ex parte.
Ms. Sakshi Chauhan, proxy Counsel for Mr. S.K. Dahiya, Counsel for
Defendant No.5.

¶5

TA for the Recovery of Rs.60,24,331.37p with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 23.05.2017.

¶6

ORDER

¶7

On 23.05.2017, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.60,24,331.37p with interest against Mohammad Maqbool Dar and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Pulwama. However, vide order dated 24.06.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pulwama, to DRTI, Chandigarh.

¶8

¶9

Defendent No.1 (Borrower) is the proprietor of M/s Maqbool Automobiles; defendant No.2 is mortgagor; defendant Nos.3 and 4 are guarantors and defendant No.5 is proforma defendant. Bank had granted financial assistance in the form of three Bank Guarantees to defendant No.1 for business purpose.

¶10

On 29.09.2004, Bank issued Bank Guarantee I of Rs.25 lacs to defendant No.1 in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. To secure the limit, defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 mortgaged his land (both fully detailed in Para No.3 of the plaint). The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 23.12.2014.

¶11

On 26.07.2005, Bank issued another Bank Guarantee II of Rs.21 lacs to defendant No.1 in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. To secure the limit, defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 mortgaged his land (both fully detailed in Para No.4 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as Guarantors for the above Bank Guarantee II of Rs.21 lacs (Guarantee Deed attached to the plaint as Annexure P-3G). The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 17.10.2014.

¶12

On 28.06.2006, Bank issued another Bank Guarantee III of Rs.40 lacs to defendant No.1 in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. To secure the limit, defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 mortgaged his land (both fully detailed in Para No.5 of the plaint). The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 23.12.2014.

¶13

On 03.03.2015, defendant No.5 invoked the Bank Guarantees and demanded payment of an amount of Rs.69,21,044.37p on account of the failure of defendant No.1 to make payment in accordance with the terms of the contract. On 14.03.2015, the said amount was credited in favour of the beneficiary M/s Mahindra & Mahindra. The credit limits were

¶14

¶15

chargeable with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.04.2017, a sum of Rs.60,24,331.37p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

¶16

On 28.11.2018, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, wherein they have admitted that they obtained financial assistance from Bank. Defendants have submitted that they have liquidated the whole amount with interest. There is nothing outstanding against defendant No.1 on that account. They further stated that defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors, but they are not liable to pay any amount towards the bank, as it has been liquidated them.

¶17

On 23.11.2017, summonses were sent to the defendants. However, defendants did not put in appearance. On 01.02.2018, defendant Nos.3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte before the Civil Court. After transfer, on 10.07.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 08.07.2026, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were also proceeded ex parte.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Syed Niyaz Ahmad, Law Officer, along with the loan and original security documents.

¶19

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 Bank Guarantees aggregating to Rs.86 lacs (BG-I: Rs.25 lacs; BG-II: Rs.21 lacs and BG-III: Rs.40lacs) to defendant No.1 and on 30.04.2017, a sum of Rs.60,24,331.37p was due.

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.60,24,331.37p (Rupees Sixty Lacs Twenty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-One and Paise Thirty-Seven Only) with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 23.05.2017, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No.1 and 2 would be joint and several for the whole decretal amount. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are only liable to pay the dues upto the amount due in Bank Guarantee II of Rs.21 lacs as per the Guarantee Deed executed by them. No claim lies against defendant No.5 being the Proforma Defendant. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets and mortgaged land (fully detailed in Para No.5 of the plaint), as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 9. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 10. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 03.09.2026. 11. 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: 30.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶23

HARSH

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mohammad Maqbool Dar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Mohammad Maqbool Dar

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

Canara Bank versus Hardeep Singh

Sanjay Kumar Mishra versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Vijay Kumar Maurya

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Aakriti Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Chandan and Chandan Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Sandeep Kumar versus Punjab and Sind Bank