Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Ganaie Traders

DRT10 Jun 2026TA/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for recovery of ₹28,39,572/- with interest due from the applicants loan accounts. The court held that the bank proved its case regarding the advance of loans and outstanding dues, ordering the defendants to repay, permitting recovery from mortgaged or personal property, and directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹28,39,572/- with interest allowed; Costs awarded; Recovery Certificate issued; Parties to appear before Recovery Officer.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ganaie… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 61/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 01.06.2018 Date of Decision: 10.06.2026

¶5

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Zadagar, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/S Ganaie Traders, Jamallata, Srinagar, through its Proprietor Manzoor Ahmed Ganie S/o Ghulam Mohd Ganie, r/o Sehyar Jammalatta, Srinagar.

¶9

Ghulam Mohammad Ganie S/o Mohd Ramzan Ganie, r/o Jamallatta Nawakadal, Srinagar.

¶10

Faroog Ahmed Ganai S/o Mohd Ramzan Ganie, r/o Jamallatta Nawakadal, Srinagar.

¶11

Razia Qadir D/o Ghulam Qadir Ganie, r/o Jamallatta Nawakadal, Srinagar.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates

¶14

Ms. Meena Malhotra proxy counsel for Sh. P.S. Sobti, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶15

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 13.08.2025 .

¶16

TA for the Recovery of ₹28,39,572/- with interest from 01.06.2018.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

On 01.06.2018, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹28,39,572/- with interest against M/S Ganaie Traders and others (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. However, vide order dated 14.11.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶19

Bank’s case is that on 10.08.2004, it had granted a loan of

¶20

₹4.00Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor Manzoor Ahmed

¶21

¶22

Ganie in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. Again on 26.09.2005, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹4.00 Lacs to ₹6.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter, (Annexure P- 15). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. Again on 18.07.2006, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹6.00 Lacs to ₹10.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter, (Annexure P-26). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. To secure C.C. Limit, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.6 of the application).

¶23

2A. Again on 21.10.2005, at the request of the defendants, bank granted a Term Loan of ₹23,885/- to defendant no.1 through its proprietor Manzoor Ahmed Ganie for Vehicle purpose. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 stood as guarantors. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 30.04.2018, a sum of ₹28,39,572/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶24

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which was duly served. After transfer, summonses were sent to the defendants. However, they did not put in appearance which proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Shoiab Ramzan Rather, Relationship Executive, Law Department, along with the original 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 loans under various schemes and on 30.04.2018, a sum of ₹28,39,572/- was due.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹28,39,572/(Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two Only) i.e. ₹27,79,386/- in the C.C. Limit with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests and ₹60,186/- in the Vehicle Loan with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 01.06.2018, 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 C.C. limit and the liability of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in in Term Loan. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.6 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶27

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 13.07.2026. 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: 10.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Ganaie Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Ganaie Traders

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Krishnappa

M S Pace Marketing Solutions Private Limited versus Bank of Maharashtra

Raja J versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

Smt Sulukshna Tandon versus Central Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Nikha Ornaments

Pawan Kumar Sahu versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.