Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/S CABLE CORPORATION OF KASHMIR on 16 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 137 of 2024
Date of Institution: 13.08.2016
Date of Decision: 16.06.2026
SBI with its administrative office at RASMECCCC, Administrative Office, Bahu Plaza, Jammu.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Cable Corporation of Kashmir, Industrial estate Extension Area, Ashok Nagar, Jammu through its proprietor Sh. Sumit Malhota s/o Sh. Sunil Malhotra r/o H.no.91-A, Vikas Lane no.3, Talab Tillo, Jammu.
2. Sh. Sumit Malhota s/o Sh. Sunil Malhotra r/o H.no.91-A, Vikas Lane no.3, Talab Tillo, Jammu.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Ajay Singla proxy counsel for Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants – ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹66,91,628/- with interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 13.08.2016.
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 13.08.2016, SBI filed the suit for the recovery of ₹66,91,628/- with interest against M/s Cable Corporation of Kashmir and another (defendants) in the Court of District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu. However, vide order dated 20.04.2023, this plaint was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu to DRT- I, Chandigarh.
2. Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm and was transacting with the bank with its then proprietor Mr. Sunil Malhotra when Bank had granted various loan facilities totaling to ₹42.29Lacs. On 30.04.2010, Defendant no.2 was admitted as the proprietor of Defendant no.1.
2A. Bank’s case is that on 15.01.2011, it had enhanced C.C. Limit from ₹20.00Lacs to ₹40.00Lacs; granted a loan of ₹5.20Lacs in the form of Term Loan; reviewed the existing limit of ₹5.76Lacs in the form of Term Loan; reviewed existing limit of ₹8.32Lacs in the form of Term Loan to defendants for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendants no.1 had mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.6 of the plaint). 2B. On 22.09.2011, the defendants requested to revalidate the term loan of ₹5.20Lacs and granted a loan of ₹9.00Lacs totaling to ₹14.20Lacs and acknowledged the sanction of ₹40.00Lacs in the C.C. Limit. To secure the loan, Defendants no.1 extended charge over the mortgaged property (fully detailed in para No.6 of the plaint). On 10.08.2016, total sum of ₹66,91,628/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendants filed a written statement before the Civil Court, wherein they have alleged that they did not apply for the any loan facility and have denied the case of the Bank. 3A. After receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 15.10.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ramesh Chander, Authorised Officer, 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 loans under different schemes and on 10.08.2016, a sum of ₹66,91,628/-
(₹64,32,214/- in the C.C. Limit; ₹54,751/- in Term Loan-I; ₹70,868/- in Term Loan-II; ₹1,33,795/- in Term Loan –III) was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹66,91,628/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) with interest @14.50% per annum with monthly rests from 13.08.2016, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.6 of the plaint 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 mortgage property 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