Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shugafta Hamid

DRT18 Jul 2026TA/314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹2,41,68,735.10 plus interest. The court found the bank proved its case regarding term loans, overdraft limits, and securities. Liability of heirs is limited to inherited property; other respondents face joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹2,41,68,735.10 with interest at 14% p.a. Issued Recovery Certificate. Directions given to Recovery Officer to auction mortgaged assets.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shugafta Hamid — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 314/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 18.09.2015 Date of Decision: 18.07.2026

¶5

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Branch Unit at Handwara, South.

¶6

……. Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shugafta Hamid w/o Abul Hamid Malik, r/o Mindan Chogal, Handwara Distt. Kupwara (Sole Prop. of M/s Momin Corrugates and Containers - Maidan-i-Chogul).

¶9

Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan s/o Mohammad Akbar Khan, r/o Chogul Handwara District Kupwara.

¶10

Abdul Hamid Malik s/o Haji Qadir Malik, r/o Chogal Handwara, Distt. Kupwara.

¶11

Javid Ahmad Khan s/o Nazir Ahmad Khan, r/o Chogal Handwara, Distt. Kupwara.

¶12

Mohammad Akbar Khan s/o Amad Khan, r/o Maindan Chogal Handwara, Distt. Kupwara.

¶13

Mst. Zona Begum wd/o Gh. Qadir Malik, r/o Maindan Chogal Handwara, Distt. Kupwara.

¶14

………. Defendants

¶15

Advocates

¶16

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 18.07.2026 .

¶17

TA for the Recovery of ₹2,41,68,735.10p with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 18.09.2015.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

On 18.09.2015, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹2,41,68,735.10p with interest against Shugafta Hamid and others (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. However, vide order dated 25.07.2023, Additional District & Sessions Judge Handwara, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶20

¶21

Defendant No.1 is the sole proprietor of M/s Momin Corrugates and Containers. Bank’s case is that on 18.12.2008, it had granted Term Loan of ₹30.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. On 27.02.2009, at the request of the defendants, bank granted C.C. Limit of ₹12.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant no. 1, 5 and Ghulam Qadir Malik had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para no.3 of the plaint). Haji Gh. Qadir Malik and Defendant nos.2, 3, 5 stood a s guarantors for both the loan facilities. 2B. On 23.04.2010, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit/Working Capital Limit from ₹12.00Lacs to ₹50.00Lacs besides the existing Term loan of ₹30.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 1 and Ghulam Qadir Malik had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para no.3 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹50.00 Lacs.

¶22

2C. Again on 12.03.2011, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit/Working Capital Limit from ₹50.00 Lacs to ₹91.00 Lacs and granted a Term Loan of ₹42.45Lacs in addition to the existing Term Loan of ₹30.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure both the loan facilities, Defendant No.1 hypothecated assets and defendant Nos.1 and Ghluam Qadir Malik had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para No.5 of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors. Gh. Qadir Malik is now deceased and survived by his legal heirs defendant Nos.3 and 6 and properties mortgaged by him have devolved upon them. Both the loans were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.12.2014, a sum of ₹2,41,68,735.10p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶23

¶24

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance before the Civil Court and were proceeded ex parte.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Aijaz Bazaz, Assistant Vice President Law, along with the original loan and security documents.

¶26

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 31.12.2014, total sum of ₹2,41,68,735.10p was due.

¶27

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹2,41,68,735.10p (Rupees Two Crores Forty One Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Ten Only) with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 18.09.2015, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.3 and 6 would be limited to clear the dues upto the extent of the property(ies) inherited by them from Gh. Qadir Malik (now deceased), whereas liability of defendant Nos.1,2,4 and 5 would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para Nos.3 to 5 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 accordingly.

¶28

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶29

¶30

mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶31

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: 18.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shugafta Hamid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. Shugafta Hamid

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Venkateshappa S N and Others

Bank of India versus Muniyamma

Canara Bank versus Kamalamma

State Bank of India versus M/S Shree Udyog

Nanna Kuraisi versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Uv Arc Ltd. (Icici Bank Limited) versus M/S De Bono Flexcom India Ltd. and Ors.