Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S WULAR WEAVES on 15 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 274/2023
Date of Institution: 19.09.2017
Date of Decision: 15.07.2026
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited having its Business Unit at Lassipora, Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
M/S Wular Weaves, I.G.C Lassipora, Sole Proprietorship concern of Umar Mukhtar Mahajan s/o Mukhtar Ahmad Mahajan, r/o 18- Green Avenue Sector A, Peerbugh, Srinagar.
……….Defendant
Advocates
Sh. Amit Rishi, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 16.09.2021.
TA for the Recovery of ₹81,60,975.28p with interest @10.75% per annum with monthly rests from 19.09.2017.
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 19.09.2017, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹81,60,975.28p with interest against M/S Wular Weaves (defendant) in the Court of Principal District Judge at Pulwama. However, vide order dated 18.03.2023, Principal District Judge, Pulwama, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 06.07.2013, it had granted Term Loan of ₹63.48Lacs and a C.C. Limit of ₹12.44Lacs to defendant through its Proprietor for business purpose. To secure both the loan facilities, Defendant had hypothecated his assets and mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.5 of the application). Both the loan facilities were chargeable to interest @10.75% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.08.2017, a sum of ₹81,60,975.28p was due from the defendant.
Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The Civil Court sent summons to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, he did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.09.2021, he was proceeded ex parte. After the transfer of the suit, the defendants were sent summonses which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance,
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Syed Niyaz Ahmad, Law Officer and Mr. Mohamad Waqar ul Haq, Assistant Manager Law 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 total loan of ₹75.92 Lacs (Term Loan of ₹63.48 Lacs; C.C. Limit of ₹12.44 Lacs) and on 30.08.2017, a sum of ₹81,60,975.28p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹81,60,975.28p (Rupees Eighty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five and Paise Twenty Eight Only) with interest @10.75% per annum with monthly rests from 19.09.2017, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.5(i) to
(ii) of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 17.08.2026, 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: 15.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA