Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs MOHAMMAD SALEEM SULTAN on 7 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 268/2023
Date of Institution: 28.10.2020
Date of Decision: 07.07.2026
Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Branch office at the Court Road, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, Kashmir.
...Applicant
Vs.
1. Mohammad Saleem Sultan S/o Ghulam Mohi-udin Sultan R/o Nandpora Ashiebagh Srinagar, Kashmir.
2. Nisar Ahmad Sultan S/o, Mohammad Qazim Sultan Proprietor M/s Paradise Handicrafts Near Ashaibagh Bridege Negeen Srinagar, Kashmir
...Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Counsel for the Applicant Bank (on VC).
None for defendants.
TA for the Recovery of Rs.31,66,769/- with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 28.10.2020.
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 28.10.2020. Bank of Baroda filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.31,66,769/- with interest against Mohammad Saleem Sultan and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, Kashmir. However, vide order dated 08.12.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-1, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 20.06.2005, it had granted a Housing Loan Facility of Rs.9.00 lacs to defendant No.1 for the construction of a residential house. To secure the loan, defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land measuring 10 Marlas bearing the Khasra No.1171/1054/5, Khawat No.31, Khata No.192, Moza Khimber, Tehsil Harzratbal
District Srinagar, Kashmir (fully detailed in para-No.3(V) of the plaint). The loan was chargeable to interest @8.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.07.2020, a sum of Rs.31,66,769/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.
3. On 06.11.2024, Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, wherein they alleged that Mr. Prashant B Vahulraje, the officer of the Applicant Bank is not competent to file the present case as the documents relied upon by the Bank, relate to the time when the official concerned was not holding the designation on the date of execution of the loan documents and was not even posted at the branch concerned of the bank by which the loan was advanced. Defendants state that the Bank got the defendants to sign some blank papers/documents, copies of which were never supplied to the defendants despite several requests as well as personal visits to the branch office. They further state that to secure the said credit facility and to show their Bonafide to repay the said credit facility, defendant No.1 mortgaged his land in favour of the Bank and defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. They further state that they requested the Bank to supply the terms and conditions of the sanction, but the Bank never supplied any term and conditions of the sanction despite repeated requests.
4. On 09.05.2023, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post. On 24.01.2025, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants perused the documents and admitted their signatures on the documents.
5. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Prashant B Vahulraje, Authorized Officer, along with the loan and original security documents.
6. 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 Rs.9.00 lacs and on 31.07.2020, a sum of Rs.31,66,769/- was due.
7. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.31,66,769/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lacs Sixty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Nine Only) with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 28.10.2020, 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 the mortgaged property (fully detailed in para-No.3(V) of the plaint) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.
8. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
9. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
10. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 07.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
11. 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 HARSH