Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs M/S DESIGN ORNAMENTS on 11 February 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 230 of 2023
Date of Institution: 04.03.2016
Date of Decision: 11.02.2026
Canara Bank at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Design Ornaments, Khrew, Tehsil Pampore through its proprietor Basharat Azad Zargar.
2. Basharat Azad Zargar s/o Azad Hussain Zargar, r/o Dhobi Mohalla, Khrew, Tehsil Pampore.
3. Azad Hussain Zargar s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Zargar r/o Dhobi Mohalla, Khrew, Tehsil Pampore.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for the applicant bank.
None for defendants.
TA for the Recovery of ₹58,40,926/- with interest @13.15% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. On 04.03.2016, Canara Bank filed the suit for the recovery of ₹58,40,926/- with interest against M/s Design Ornaments and others (defendants) in the Civil Court Srinagar. However, vide order dated 30.11.2019, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 12.05.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹40.00Lacs to defendant nos.1 and 2 in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.3 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.5 of the suit). Defendant no.3 stood as the guarantor. On 17.11.2014, the bank restructured the C.C. Limit and carved out a W.C.T.L. of Rs.6.00Lacs. The loans were chargeable to interest @13.15% per annum with monthly rests. The defendants had acknowledged the liability towards the debt on 17.11.2014. On 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹58,40,926/-was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit. 2A. The defendants had filed written statement before the Civil Court.
3. The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which was duly served. After the transfer of suit to this Tribunal, summonses were sent to defendants, which were duly served yet they did not put in appearance. Hence, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of MD. Shahab Akhtar, Branch Manager, along with the 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 different schemes and on 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹58,40,926/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹58,40,926/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Six Only) with interest @13.15% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016, 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 fully detailed in para No.5 of the suit as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.03.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
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: 11.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh