Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S RIK ENTERPRISES on 16 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 4/2024
Date of Institution: 21.06.2021
Date of Decision: 16.06.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Branch Unit at Amira Kadal, Srinagar.
……..Applicant
Vs.
M/s Rik Enterprises and Others through its proprietor
1. Iqbal Ahmed Khan s/o Abdul Jabbar Khan, r/o Dampora Basantbagh, Srinagar.
2. Bashir Ahmed Khan s/o Abdul Jabbar Khan, r/o 109, Dampora Basantbagh, Srinagar.
3. Mohammad Iqbal s/o Mohammad Shafi, r/o Buch Mohalla Rajori Kadal, Srinagar.
4. Amir Sidiq s/o Mohammad Sidiq Makil, r/o Kouwdabal Rainawari, Srinagar.
5. Showkat Ahmed Khan s/o Ghulam Nabi Khan, r/o Basant Nagar, Srinagar.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Ajay Singla proxy counsel for Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹22,75,700.41p with interest from 21.06.2021.
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 21.06.2021, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹22,75,700.41p with interest against M/s Rik Enterprises and others (defendants) in the Civil Court, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 26.04.2023, 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 10.07.2014, it had granted C.C Limit of ₹6.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Rik Enterprises had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant No.2 and Mr. Shair Ali Sofi stood as guarantors for the C.C. Limit of ₹6.00 Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @14.25% per annum with monthly rests. 2A. On 20.01.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank granted W.C.D.L. of ₹1.20 Lacs to defendant No.1 under J&K Bank’s Rehabilitation Scheme for Business purpose. The W.C.D.L. Limit was adjusted and the D.P. Note of ₹7.20Lacs was executed. Defendant No.2 and Mr. Shair Ali Sofi stood as guarantors for the limit of ₹7.20Lacs. 2B. Again on 14.12.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹7.20Lacs to ₹14.00Lacs. The enhanced limit was chargeable to interest @10.80% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the loan, defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Rik Enterprises extended charge over the hypothecated assets. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the limit of ₹14.00Lacs. 2C. Again on 25.10.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank granted Term Loan of ₹4.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for Vehicle Purpose. Defendant No.5 stood as guarantor for the Term Loan. To secure the loan, defendant No.1 had hypothecated vehicle (fully detailed in para no.14). The loan was chargeable to interest @9.35% with monthly rests. On 31.05.2021, total sum of ₹22,75,700.41p 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. The right to file written statement qua Defendant no.1 was closed on 10.06.2022 and Defendant no.3 was proceeded ex parte. After transfer, summonses were sent to Defendant nos. 2, 4 and 5. However, they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte against the defendants.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmad 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 31.05.2021, a sum of ₹22,75,700.41p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹22,75,700.41p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Paise Forty One Only) ₹18,55,888.41p in C.C. Limit with interest @10.80% p.a. and ₹4,19,812/- in Vehicle Loan with interest @9.35% p.a. (both facilities) with monthly rests from 21.06.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.1 to 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in the C.C. Limit and the liability of Defendant no.1 and 5 would be joint and several for the amount due in Vehicle Loan. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.4 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants 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 17.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
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: 16.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA