Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S S.S. TRADERS on 4 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 33/2023
Date of Institution: 28.09.2020
Date of Decision: 04.07.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Business Unit Khonmoh Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s S.S. Traders, Industrial Estate, Khonmoh, Srinagar, through its proprietor Showkat Ahmed Bakshi s/o Ghulam Mohammad Bakshi, r/o Bemina, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
2. Mudasir Ahmed Gilkar s/o Mohammad Yaqoob Gilkar, r/o Zampa Kadal Chattabal, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
3. Gulzar Ahmed Mir s/o Ali Mohammad Mir, r/o Gousia Colony, Bemina, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Sarik Minhas proxy counsel for Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 07.08.2024.
TA for the Recovery of ₹47,92,892.50p with interest from 28.09.2020.
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 28.09.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹47,92,892.50p with interest against M/s S.S. Traders and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 30.12.2022, 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 17.04.2014, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹10.00 Lacs; Term Loan of ₹23.00 Lacs (both loans under CGTMSE
Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor Showkat Ahmed Bakshi for business purpose. To secure both the loan facilities, defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application). Again on 20.02.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit by granting additional C.C. Limit of ₹2.00 Lacs under Rehabilitation Package for the persons affected during the period spanning from July 2016 to December 2016 and WCTL of ₹2.32 Lacs. To secure the aforementioned loan facilities, Defendant No.1 had extended his charge over the hypothecated assets and mortgaged his property. Again on 07.08.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank granted an Adhoc limit of ₹2.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor Showkat Ahmed Bakshi for a period of 30 days for Business purpose. 2A. On 28.09.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹10.00 Lacs to ₹16.00 Lacs. The Adhoc Limit of ₹2.00 Lacs under Rehabilitation Package was added to the existing Limit of Rs.16.00Lacs and the limit was raised to Rs.18.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had extended his charge over the hypothecated assets and mortgaged his property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. 2B. Again on 18.08.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank granted an Adhoc Working Facility of ₹0.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor Showkat Ahmed Bakshi for Business purpose. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 30.06.2020, a sum of ₹47,92,892.50p 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. After transfer, summonses were sent to the defendants but they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 07.08.2024.
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 30.06.2020, a sum of ₹47,92,892.50p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹47,92,892.50p (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two and Paise Fifty Only) i.e. ₹30,63,598.50p with interest in C.C. Limit @14% p.a. with monthly rests; ₹17,13,794/- (being the aggregate amount of the Term Loans) with interest @9.50% with monthly rests from 28.09.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of Defendant nos. 1 to 3 would be joint and several for the amount due in the C.C. Limit. Defendant no.1 would be fully liable for the amount due in the Term Loans. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.12 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: 04.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA