Allowed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Metro Agencies

DRT14 Jul 2026TA/96/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹1,44,11,810/- with interest along with costs. The court found the case proved and issued a recovery certificate, declaring defendants' liability joint and several subject to mortgage-specific exceptions. An appearance date was fixed with the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹1,44,11,810/- with interest at 15.60% per annum from 24.02.2021 allowed with costs. Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 96/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 24.02.2021 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026

¶5

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its Business Unit at Nallamar, Srinagar.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Metro Agencies, Saraf Kadal, Nallamar Road, Srinagar, Sole Proprietor Umar Habib Khar s/o Habibullah Khar, r/o Sheikh Mohalla, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶9

Umar Habib Khar s/o Habibullah Khar, r/o Sheikh Mohalla, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶10

Habibullah Khar s/o Abdul Ahad, r/o Sheikh Mohalla, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶11

Halima w/o Habibullah Khar (Waza, r/o Sheikh Mohalla, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶12

Anil Kumar Gandotra s/o Late Pran Nath Gandotra, r/o Sheikh Mohalla, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar, Kashmir.

¶13

Obaid Hassan Khar s/o Ghulam Hassan Khar, r/o Wazapora, S.R. Gunj, Srinagar.

¶14

……….Defendants

¶15

Advocates

¶16

Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 21.04.2025 .

¶17

TA for the Recovery of ₹1,44,11,810/- with interest from 24.02.2021.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

On 24.02.2021, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit

¶20

for the recovery of ₹1,44,11,810/- with interest against M/s Metro Agencies (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar. However, vide order dated 21.02.2023, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶21

¶22

Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm of Defendant no.2 and engaged in the business of sale of spices, soap, detergents, ghee, mustard, oil, food stuff, biscuits etc. Bank’s case is that on 16.10.2007, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹35.00 Lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant nos. 3 and 4 mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.7 of the application). Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 stood as guarantors vide Deed of Guarantee dated 27.10.2007.

¶23

2A. On 02.06.2008, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹35.00 Lacs to ₹55.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, Defendant no.1 hypothecated assets and defendant nos. 3 and 4 mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit vide Deeds of Guarantee dated 02.06.2008.

¶24

2B. Again on 10.08.2009, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹55.00 Lacs to ₹71.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, Defendant no.1 hypothecated assets and defendant nos. 3 and 4 mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.16 of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 13.08.2009.

¶25

2C. Again on 22.11.2010, at the request of the defendants, bank
granted an Adhoc Limit of ₹17.75 Lacs to defendant no.1 through its
proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. Again on 19.09.2011, at
the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from
₹71.00 Lacs to ₹100.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, Defendant
no.1 hypothecated assets and defendant nos. 3 and 4 had mortgaged their
property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.21 of the application). Defendant

¶26

¶27

Nos.3 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 31.12.2011.

¶28

2D. During the year of 2014, due to disturbance caused by floods in the valley, bank granted W.C.T.L. of ₹26.50 Lacs under Rehabilitation Revival & Relief Package for persons affected by natural calamity in J&K State by converting the outstanding amount in C.C. Limit of ₹100.00 Lacs and also granted an additional C.C. Limit of ₹13.25 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for Business purpose. To secure the W.C.T.L. and additional C.C. Limit, Defendant no.1 hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.27 of the application).

¶29

2E. Again on 07.09.2015, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹100.00 Lacs to ₹115.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, Defendant No.1 hypothecated assets and defendant nos. 3 and 4 mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.29 of the application). Defendant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 24.09.2015. Again on 30.07.2018, applicant bank reduced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹115.00 Lacs to ₹100.00 Lacs. All the aforementioned loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.01.2021, a sum of ₹1,44,11,810/- 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. The defendants were directed to file their written statement within the stipulate time. However, they failed to do so and their right to file written statement was closed on 20.09.2022. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were

¶31

¶32

duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 21.04.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.

¶33

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmed Shera, Executive Law, 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 31.01.2021, a sum of ₹1,44,11,810/(₹1,33,70,925.81p in the C.C. Limit and ₹9,58,765/- in the W.C.T.L. and ₹82,093 Insurance Premium) was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹1,44,11,810/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lacs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Ten Only) with interest @15.60% per annum with monthly rests from 24.02.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 would be joint and several for the amount due in C.C. Limit and the liability of Defendant nos.1 and 2 would be joint and several for the amount due in W.C.T.L. and towards the insurance Premium. Account. No personal claim lies against defendant no.4 being the mortgager. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para Nos.7,12,16,21,29 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 accordingly.

¶34

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 17.08.2026.

¶35

¶36

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: 14.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Metro Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited v. M/S Metro Agencies

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 Baroda versus Roshan Ara

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Noorani Garments

Manju Devi versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Jayamma versus Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban Cooperative Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S National Industries

M/S Shree Tirupati Finisher versus City Union Bank Limited