Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs VAQUAR AHMAD BHAT . on 15 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 297/2023
Date of Institution: 04.11.2020
Date of Decision: 15.06.2026
Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Sopore District Baramulla, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. Vaquar Ahmad Bhat s/o Abdul Rashid Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehmana District Baramulla, Kashmir.
2. Talib Rashid Bhat s/o Abdul Rashid Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehmana District Baramulla, Kashmir.
3. Tariq Ahmad Bhat s/o Abdul Rashid Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehmana District Baramulla, Kashmir.
4. Mst. Roshna d/o Abdul Rashid Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehmana District Baramulla, Kashmir.
5. Mohd Akbar Bhat s/o Abdul Rashid Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehmana District Baramulla, Kashmir.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Ms. Sonal Chabbra proxy counsel for Sh. Omkar Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹1,52,45,064/- with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from 04.11.2020.
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 04.11.2020, Canara Bank filed the suit for the recovery of ₹1,52,45,064/- with interest against Vaquar Ahmad Bhat and others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sopore. However, vide order dated 08.06.2023, 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 22.01.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹30.00Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of O.C.C Limit for business purpose. Again on 11.07.2014, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹30.00 Lacs to ₹49.00 Lacs. Again on 10.03.2015, at the request of the defendants, bank restructured the existing limit and granted a Working Capital Term Loan of ₹30.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for Business purpose. To secure all the loan facilities, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant Nos.1 to 4 had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.11 of the plaint). Defendant No.5 stood as the guarantor. 2A. On 31.03.2016, at the request of the defendants, bank granted an Adhoc Limit of ₹9.80 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the Adhoc Limit, defendant No.1 hypothecated assets in favour of the plaintiff bank (fully detailed in para No.8 of the application). To secure all the loan facilities, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant Nos.1 to 4 had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.11 of the plaint). Defendant No.5 stood as the guarantor. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.08.2019, a sum of ₹1,52,45,064/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The Civil Court sent summons to the defendants by registered post, which was duly served. Despite the service, the defendants did not put in appearance, before Civil Court and were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ummar Hameed, Branch Manager, 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 31.08.2019, a sum of ₹1,52,45,064/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹1,52,45,064/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand Sixty Four Only) i.e. ₹1,05,06,507/- in the Cash Credit Account with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests and ₹47,38,557/- in the WCTL/Ad-hoc Limit with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from 04.11.2020, 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 and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.11 of the application 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 17.07.2026, 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: 15.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA