Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD vs AB RASHID SOFI on 9 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 322/2023
Date of Institution:26.09.2013
Date of Decision: 09.07.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Branch Office at K.B. Adda, Baramulla.
...Applicant
Vs.
1. Ab Rashid Sofi,
S/o Ab. Ahad Sofi,
R/o Azad Gunj, Baramulla
Proprietor of Rashid & Co.
(BORROWER)
2. Fayaz Ahmad Shalla
S/o Abdul Aziz Shalla
R/o Chesti Colony, Arampara, Baramulla.
3. Gh. Nabi Sofi
S/o Ab Ahad Sofi
R/o Azad Gunj, Baramulla.
(GUARANTORS)
…Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
None for defendants.
TA for the Recovery of Rs.27,78,934.30/- with interest @11.50% per annum with quarterly rests from 26.09.2013.
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 26.09.2013, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.27,78,934.30/- with interest against Ab Rashid Sofi and others (defendants) in the Court of the District Judge, Baramulla. However, vide order dated 25.09.2023, this suit was transferred by Court of the District Judge, Baramulla, to DRT-1, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 20.02.2007, it had granted a loan of Rs.14.50 lacs to defendant No.1 for business purpose. To secure the loan,
Defendant No.1 had hypothecated his assets (fully detailed in para-No.4 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as Guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.50% per annum with quarterly rests. On 23.07.2013, a sum of Rs.27,78,934.30/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.
3. On 13.06.2014, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed their written statement, wherein they alleged that the defendant was regularly depositing the instalments, but unfortunately, their shop was gutted by fire and the hypothecated goods lying in the said shop were completely damaged and destroyed due to the fire. Defendants state that the insurance amount received against those damaged goods stands adjusted in the said loan account by the insurance company. They further state that they were forced to make final settlement of the said loan amount and in terms of final settlement had deposited about Rs.4.00 lacs in different instalments, besides depositing the entire insurance amount and the amount already deposited as instalments. On 19.06.2017, defendant No.3 had filed his written statement, wherein he alleged that the Bank had undervalued the suit property and had not specifically and properly valued the suit property as per Section 7 of Court Fee Act and has grabbed court fee, hence the suit be dismissed.
4. On 01.04.2024, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post. On 17.12.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial. The defendants perused 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. Mohammad Hanief Kirmani, Executive Manager Law 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.14.50 lacs and on 23.07.2013, a sum of Rs.27,78,934.30/- was due.
7. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.27,78,934.30/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lacs Seventy-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Four and Paise Thirty Only), with interest @11.50% per annum with quarterly rests from 26.09.2013, 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.4 of the plaint), as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
8. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
9. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
10. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 10.08.2026, 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: 09.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH