Allowed

J and K Grameen Bank v. Sh. Kulranjan Sharma

DRT25 Aug 2026TA/29/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹81,04,423/- with interest from three respondents who failed to repay a vehicle loan. The court issued a recovery certificate and directed joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹81,04,423/- with interest allowed; liability made joint and several; Recovery Certificate issued; future appearance directed.

J and K Grameen Bank versus Sh. Kulranjan Sharma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 29/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 26.03.2016 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026

¶5

J and K Gramin Bank having its branch office at Narwal, Jammu.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sh. Kulranjan Sharma s/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, r/o H.No.401-A, Ward No.22, Rani Talab Digiana, Jammu.

¶9

Sh. Narinder Pal Singh s/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh, r/o H.No.81, Sector-13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶10

Sh. Tej Prakash Sharma s/o Sh. Pritam Dutt Sharma, r/o H.No.381-A, Rani Talab Digiana, Jammu.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Anuj Diwan through VC, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 20.05.2025.

¶14

TA for the Recovery of ₹81,04,423/- with interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 26.03.2016.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

On 26.03.2016, J and K Gramin Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹81,04,423/- with interest against Sh. Kulranjan Sharma and others (defendants) in the Court of Learned District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 14.09.2022, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 29.09.2011, it had granted a loan of ₹59.17 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of Term Loan for Vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property and hypothecated five vehicles (fully detailed in para Nos.2 and 5 of the application and Annexure-PJ). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantor for the loan facility vide Guarantee Agreement dated 29.09.2011. The

¶18

¶19

loan was chargeable to interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 15.03.2016, a sum of ₹81,04,423/- 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 by registered post which were duly served. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 20.05.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Authorized Officer, along with the original 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 the loan of ₹59.17 Lacs and on 15.03.2016, a sum of ₹81,04,423/- was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹81,04,423/(Rupees Eighty One Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Three Only) with interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 26.03.2016, 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 mortgaged property and hypothecated vehicles fully detailed in para Nos.2 and 5 of the application and Annexure-PJ as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶26

¶27

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.09.2026.

¶28

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: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

J and K Grameen Bank v. Sh. Kulranjan Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J and K Grameen Bank v. Sh. Kulranjan Sharma

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

Rajinder Kaur Chhabra versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication

State Bank of India versus Vijay Naithani and Ors.

Federal Bank versus Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sumit Ornament House

Union Bank of India versus Sh Raman Sharma and Ors.