Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs ROSHAN ARA on 13 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 266/2023
Date of Institution: 09.07.2020
Date of Decision: 13.07.2026
Bank of Baroda having its branches all over India and a branch at Court Road, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. Roshan Ara d/o Ghulam Hussan Mir, r/o Solina Bala, Srinagar, Kashmir.
2. Tafseel Ahmad Mir s/o Ghulam Hussun Mir, r/o Solina Balla, Srinagar, Kashmir.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 28.03.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹20,73,824/- with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 09.07.2020.
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 09.07.2020, Bank of Baroda, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹20,73,824/- with interest against Roshan Ara and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, Kashmir. However, vide order dated 04.02.2023, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 03.05.2005, it had granted Term Loan of ₹2.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose and expansion of her business of Electrical goods etc. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3(II) of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide Letter of Guarantee dated 12.05.2005. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. Defendant No.1 had acknowledged her liability towards debt on 01.05.2011 and 31.05.2014. On 30.05.2020, a sum of ₹20,73,824/- 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 23.08.2025, 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, 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 ₹2.00 Lacs and on 30.05.2020, a sum of ₹20,73,824/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹20,73,824/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four Only) with interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests from 09.07.2020, 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 hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3(II) 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 14.08.2026, 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: 13.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA