Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Prince Beauty

DRT24 Aug 2026TA/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery. The court found the bank proved its case of Rs. 46.97 Lakhs due from successors and borrowers upon perusing documents. The order directs recovery from mortgaged property, hypothecated assets, and inherited personal property of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 46,97,714.48 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued under Section 17 and 18 of the RRT Act, 1993; hearing fixed before Recovery Officer.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Prince Beauty — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 85/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 20.02.2021 Date of Decision: 24.08.2026

¶5

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its Business Unit at Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Prince Beauty, Qureshi Manzil, Budshah Chowk, Godown at Iqbal Colony Lane No.2, Wanabal, Nowgam, Bye pass, Srinagar, through defendant Nos.2,3,4 & 5.

¶9

Mst. Zahida Parveen w/o Bashir Ahhmad Lone, r/o Iqbal Colony, Shankarpora, Wanabal, Nowgam, Srinagar (Legal heir/Mortgagor).

¶10

Majid Bashir Lone s/o Bashir Ahhmad Lone, r/o Iqbal Colony, Shankarpora, Wanabal, Nowgam, Srinagar (Legal heir).

¶11

Mst Asia Bashir Lone w/o Towheed Ahmad, d/o Bashir Ahmad Lone, r/o Iqbal Colony, Shankarpora, Wanabal, Nowgam, Srinagar (Legal heir).

¶12

Mst Salfia Bashir Lone w/o Zair, r/o Peerbagh, Hyderpora, Srinagar (Legal Heir).

¶13

Masroor Shafi Lone s/o Mohammad Shafi Lone, r/o Iqbal Colony, Shankarpora, Wanabal, Nowgam, Srinagar (Guarantor).

¶14

(Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are Legal Heirs of Bashir Ahmad Lone Sole Proprietor of M/s Prince Beauty).

¶15

……….Defendants

¶16

Advocates

¶17

Sh. K.P. S. Dhillon, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 04.03.2025 .

¶18

TA for the Recovery of ₹46,97,714.48p with interest @16% per annum with monthly rests from 20.02.2021.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

On 20.02.2021, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹46,97,714.48p with interest against M/s Prince Beauty and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District and

¶21

¶22

Sessions Judge at Srinagar. However, vide order dated 03.11.2022, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶23

Initially, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Shah and Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone were availing C.C. Limit of ₹23.00Lacs from the bank for running of their partnership business of Hosiery, Manari, Readymade Garments and Plastic Items etc. under the name of M/s S.B. Hosiery at Sarai Payeen, Srinagar as per the terms of Partnership dated 10.08.1994 and Registered on 11.08.1994, with Sub-Registrar, Srinagar. On 19.12.2012, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Shah and Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone dissolved the partnership vide deed of dissolution dated 19.12.2012. Thereafter, the business was carried on by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone as Sole Proprietor under the name of M/s Prince Beauty (Defendant no.1).

¶24

2A. Thereafter, in the year 2013, defendant No.1 through its proprietor Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone (since deceased, now survived by his legal heirs i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 5) approached the bank and requested to take over the liabilities of erstwhile Partnership firm M/s S.B. Hosiery. Bank acceded to the request of the Deceased Borrower and took over the liabilities of the erstwhile Partnership Firm and on 22.05.2013, Bank granted C.C. Limit of ₹35.00Lacs to defendant No.1 though its proprietor Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone for business purpose. To secure the loan, Deceased Borrower/Proprietor had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 had mortgaged her property (fully detailed in para No.8 of the application).

¶25

2B. Again on 31.10.2014, at the request of the defendants, bank restructured the existing C.C. Limit and granted Term Loan of ₹8.75Lacs out of the Cash Credit Limit and also granted additional C.C. Limit of ₹4.38Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor under

¶26

¶27

Rehabilitation/Revival & Relief Package for the persons affected under Natural Calamity in the J&K State. To secure the loan facilities, Deceased Borrower/Proprietor had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 had extended charge over the mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.10 of the application).

¶28

2C. Again on 02.02.2017, during the disturbance period spanning from July 2016 to December 2016, bank granted Working Capital Demand Loan (WCDL) of ₹6,12,500/- under Rehabilitation/Revival package to defendant No.1 through its proprietor for Business purpose. To secure the W.C.D.L., Deceased Borrower/Proprietor had hypothecated assets and defendant No.2 had extended charge over the mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.13 of the application).

¶29

2D. Again on 05.02.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank granted Term Loan of ₹17,40,866/- to Deceased Borrower and Defendant No.2 for Housing purpose. To secure the Home Loan, defendant No.2 extended charge over the mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.17 of the application). Defendant No.6 stood as guarantor for the Home Loan facility vide Deed of Guarantee dated 08.02.2018. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.12.2020, a sum of ₹46,97,714.48p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶30

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 04.03.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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 ₹48.13 Lacs (C.C. Limit of ₹35.00 Lacs; Term Loan of ₹8.75 Lacs; additional C.C. Limit of ₹4.38 Lacs) and on 31.12.2020, a sum of ₹46,97,714.48p (₹44,64,292.74p in the C.C. Limit and ₹2,33,421.74p in the Housing Loan) was due.

¶34

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹46,97,714.48p (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen and Paise Forty Eight Only) - ₹44,64,292.74p in the C.C. Limit with interest @16% per annum with monthly rests and ₹2,33,421.74p in the Housing Loan with interest @8.80% per annum with monthly rests from 20.02.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the legal heirs of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone would be limited to extent of property(ies) inherited by them from the estate of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Lone. Defendant No.2 would be liable in the capacity of mortgager, coborrower in respect of the Housing Loan and the Legal Heir of the Deceased Borrower/Proprietor. The liability of defendant no.6 would be up to the amount due in the Home Loan facility. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.6 of the application as well as from the personal/inherited movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos.1, 2 and 6 accordingly.

¶35

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶37

¶38

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.09.2026.

¶39

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: 24.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Prince Beauty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Prince Beauty

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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises