Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S UMAR TEXTILES on 18 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 166/2023
Date of Institution: 29.04.2013
Date of Decision: 18.07.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited B/U Hyderpora, Budgam, Srinagar.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Umar Textiles through its sole prop. Defendant No.2.
2. Nazir Ahmad Bhat s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, r/o Baghat-i-Barzulla, Budgam, Presently Sgr.
3. Mohammad Umar Bhat s/o Nazir Ahmed Bhat, r/o Baghat- Barzulla, Budgam, Presently Sgr,C/O Umar Textiles Sarai Bala, Srinagar.
4. Mohammad Younis Malik s/o Haji Abdul Salam Malik, r/o Jawahar Nagar, Sgr, c/o Hotel Royal Park Nowgam, Byepass, Srinagar.
5. Ghulam Husson Bhat s/o Assad-ullah Bhat, r/o Nadir Gund, Pir Bagh, Huderpora, Budgam, presently Srinagar.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 18.09.2024.
TA for the Recovery of ₹30,84,966.32p with interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.04.2013.
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 29.04.2013, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹30,84,966.32p with interest against M/s Umar Textiles and others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar. However, vide order dated 13.12.2022, 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 13.05.2005, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹5.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 24.03.2006, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹5.50 Lacs to ₹10.00 Lacs. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced C.C. Limit. 2A. Again on 02.07.2007, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹10.00Lacs to ₹17.50Lacs. To secure the Loan, Defendant No.3 mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.13 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit. On 31.12.2012, a sum of ₹30,84,966.32p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendants filed a written statement before the Court wherein they have alleged that the suit is liable to be dismissed as per order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the suit has been hit by doctrine of misjoinder and non- joinder of the necessary parties; the business of the Defendants suffered losses due to unrest in the valley due to various reasons in the years following 2008 and made multiple attempts to restart the business with the help of bank but to no avail and the business of the defendant had to be closed. Hence, the suit be dimissed. 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 18.09.2024, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Eijaz Ahmad Bazaz, Assistant General 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 loan of ₹17.50 Lacs and on 31.12.2012, a sum of ₹30,84,966.32p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹30,84,966.32p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Thirty Two Only) with interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.04.2013, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. No personal claim lies against Defendant no.3 being the mortgager. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.11 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.08.2026, 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: 18.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA