Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs NISAR AHMAD SULTAN on 3 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 315/2023
Date of Institution: 08.12.2020
Date of Decision: 03.07.2026
Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) having branches all over India and a branch office at Lal Chowk Srinagar, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. Nisar Ahmad Sultan s/o Mohammad Qazim Sultan, r/o Ashai Bagh, Near Bridge, Nigeen Srinagar, Kashmir, Prop. M/s Paradise Handicrafts.
2. Mohammad Yousuf Bhat s/o Mohammad Jaffar Bhat, r/o Ashai-Bagh, Nigeen Srinagar.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 17.09.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹25,43,577/- with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.12.2020.
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 08.12.2020, Bank of Baroda, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹25,43,577/- with interest against Nisar Ahmad Sultan and another (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. However, vide order dated 24.08.2023, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Paradise Handicrafts and engaged in the business of carpets and shawls. Bank’s case is that on 30.07.2004, it had granted Secured Loan Facility of ₹4.75 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.6 of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the above said loan facility vide Deed of Guarantee dated 21.08.2004. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards debt on 21.06.2010, 21.12.2014 and 30.11.2015. On 31.07.2020, a sum of ₹25,43,577/- 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. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 17.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Prashant B. Vahulraje, 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 loan of ₹4.75 Lacs and on 31.07.2020, a sum of ₹25,43,577/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,43,577/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven Only) with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 08.12.2020, 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 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 05.08.2026, 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: 03.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA