Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs M/S RADHA RICE MILLS on 4 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 47/2025
Date of Institution: 04.08.2021
Date of Decision: 04.06.2026
Central Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Indira Mansion, Shalamar Road, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Radha Rice Mills, a Proprietorship Concern, situated at Village Rangpur Sidray, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu, (Jammu and Kashmir) through its Proprietor Ms. Anuradha daughter of Shri Kewal Raj wife of Late Shri Vipan Kumar.
2. Ms. Anuradha daughter of Sh. Kewal Raj w/o Late Sh. Vipan Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Radha Rice Mills, R/o House No.
31, Ward No. 6, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir.
3. Shri Kewal Raj s/o Sh. Bihari Lal, r/o Village Rangpur Sidray, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir.
4. Shri Joginder Paul s/o Sh. Hakumat Raj, (Since deceased)
(Defendant/Objector) through his Legal Representatives and Legal Heirs:
(i)
Ms. Suesh w/o Late Sh. Joginder Paul, r/o H.No.87, Ward No.6, R S pura, Jammu. (Jammu and Kashmir)
(Wife)
(ii)
Sh. Varun s/o Late Joginder Paul, r/o H.No.87, Ward No.6, R S pura, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir (Son)
(iii)
Sh. Arun s/o Late Shri Joginder Paul, r/o H.No.87, Ward No.6, R S pura, Jammu. (Jammu and Kashmir)
(Son)
5. Ms. Ram Pyari w/o Sh. Kewal Raj, r/o Village Rangpur Sidray, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹94,36,169.14p with interest @12.35% per annum with monthly rests from 04.08.2021.
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 04.08.2021, Central Bank of India filed the suit for the recovery of ₹94,36,169.14p with interest against M/s Radha Rice Mills and others (defendants) in the Civil Court, Jammu. However, vide order dated 20.04.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 28.11.2011, it granted a C.C Limit of ₹50.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2, 3 and 5 had mortgaged their land (fully detailed in para No.6 and 7 of the plaint). Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 stood as guarantors. Again on 22.11.2012, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹50.00 Lacs to ₹95.00 Lacs. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit. To secure the loan, defendant No.2, 3 and 5 extended the charge over the property. Defendant no.4 is deceased and now survived by his legal heirs i.e. defendant Nos. 4(i) to 4(iii). The loan was chargeable to interest @12.35% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards debt on 02.07.2018, 22.11.2012 and 18.10.2019. On 28.07.2021, a sum of ₹94,36,169.14p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. After transfer, Defendants were sent summonses which were duly served. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Legal Heirs of Defendant no.4 were impleaded and summonses were sent which were duly served. However, the defendants/Legal heirs did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Janak Kumar, Authorized Officer, 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 loan of ₹95.00 Lacs and on 28.07.2021, a sum of ₹94,36,169.14p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹94,36,169.14p (Rupees Ninety Four Lacs Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine and Paise Fourteen Only) with interest @12.35% per annum with monthly rests from 04.08.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the legal heirs of defendant No.4 would be limited to the extent of the property(ies) inherited by them from Sh. Joginder Paul whereas the liability of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No. 6 and 7 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant no.1to 3 and 5 accordingly.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 07.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) 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: 04.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA