Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S MAK INTERIORS on 18 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 103/2023
Date of Institution: 29.06.2017
Date of Decision: 18.06.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Branch Office/Branch Unit at Residency Road, Srinagar.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Mak Interiors through its sole proprietor Muzaffar Khan s/o Ghulam Rasool Khan, r/o Raj Bagh Extension, Srinagar.
2. Ahmad Mushtaq Mandu s/o Late Haji Abdul Jabbar Mandu, r/o 44-Wazir Bagh, Srinagar.
3. Tariq Ahmed Ganaie s/o Abdul Rashid Ganaie, r/o Baghi Ali Mardan Khan, Srinagar.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Vipul Dharmani proxy counsel for Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2024.
TA for the Recovery of ₹30,85,160/- with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.06.2017.
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 29.06.2017, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹30,85,160/- with interest against M/s Mak Interiors and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 21.02.2023, 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 21.08.2008, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹5.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor Muzaffar Khan for business purpose. To secure the loan, Muzaffar Khan (being the proprietor of defendant No.1) had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). On 12.03.2010, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹5.00 Lacs to ₹7.50Lacs. Defendant No.2 and Mr. Naseeb Ahmad Bhat stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹7.50 Lacs. 2A. Again on 15.03.2012, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹7.50 Lacs to ₹11.00 Lacs. On 29.03.2012, the limit was renewed lastly at ₹11.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Muzaffar Khan (being the proprietor of defendant No.1) had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹11.00Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.03.2017, total sum of ₹30,85,160/- 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. However, they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 25.06.2022. After transfer of the suit, the Defendants were sent summonses which were duly served but did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 29.04.2024.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Shoiab Ramzan Rather, Authorized 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 the loan of ₹11.00Lacs and on 31.03.2017, a sum of ₹30,85,160/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹30,85,160/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty Only)
with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.06.2017, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets 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 20.07.2026, 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: 18.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA