UCO BANK vs M/S FOUR BHAI MOTORS on 7 July 2026

ORDER

1. On 01.09.2004, UCO Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹59,84,133/- with interest against M/s Four Bhai Motors and others (defendants) in the District Court Srinagar. However, vide order dated 27.02.2023, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

2. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of defendant Nos.2 to 6 engaged in the business of sales, service and spares dealers of M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. in Kashmir. Bank’s case is that on 29.03.1986, at the request of the defendant No.1 through its partners defendant Nos.2 to 6

and Mumtaz Begum (deceased partner) granted a loan of ₹1.50 Lacs in the form of Over Draft Limit for Business purpose. 2A. Again on 07.11.1986, at the request of the defendants, bank granted C.C. Limit-II of ₹15.00 Lacs along with sub-limit of ₹5.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its partners defendant nos.2 to 6 and Mumtaz Begum (now deceased) for Business purpose. To secure the both facilities amounting to ₹20.00 Lacs, Defendant No.1 hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.10 of the application). Defendant nos. 2 to 6, Mumtaz Begum being the partners of defendant No.1 and Kh. Ali Shah s/o Qamar Shah stood as guarantors for the aforementioned loan facilities vide Deed of Guarantee dated 07.11.1986. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 09.03.2000, a sum of ₹59,84,133/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant no.5 filed his written statement before the District Court wherein he alleged that the suit is barred by limitation; the suit is not as per the provisions of CPC; the sui has been filed by unauthorised person; the firm of the Defendants is unregistered and hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act; the defendant denied the execution of the documents; the facilities were not granted fully; the guaranteeing defendants are now deceased and thus no liability of the Defendants arises on account of those deeds; the acknowledgement of debt vide various letters was made in the backdrop of the eruption of militancy in the State and are hence denied. Hence, the OA be dismissed. 3A. 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 27.01.2026, they were proceeded ex parte.

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior 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 loans under various schemes and on 09.03.2000, a sum of ₹59,84,133/- was due.

6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹59,84,133/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lacs Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Three Only) with interest @19.34% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2004, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.10 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 10.08.2026, 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: 07.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA