JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs ABDUL HAMID BHAT . on 20 August 2026

ORDER

1. On 22.09.2020, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹4,55,79,257.81p with interest against Abdul Hamid Bhat and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla. However, vide order dated 24.07.2023, Principal District Judge, Baramulla, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

2. Bank’s case is that on 15.04.2005, it had granted a loan of ₹3.00Lacs to defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Jehangir and Co. in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (the father of defendant No.1 now deceased) had mortgaged his property. Again on 29.04.2006, at the request of the

defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹3.00 Lacs to ₹5.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (now deceased) extended charge over the mortgaged property. Again on 23.06.2007, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹5.00 Lacs to ₹8.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (now deceased) extended charge over the mortgaged property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors vide Deed of Guarantee dated 28.06.2007. 2A. Again on 20.05.2008, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹8.00 Lacs to ₹25.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (now deceased) extended charge over the mortgaged property. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹25.00 Lacs vide Deed of Guarantee dated 30.05.2008. 2B. Again on 03.09.2009, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹25.00Lacs to ₹40.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat (now deceased) extended charge over the mortgaged property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹40.00 Lacs vide Deed of Guarantee dated 12.09.2009. 2C. Again on 22.03.2011, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹40.00Lacs to ₹75.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.10 of the application). The property mortgaged by Mohammad Maqbool Bhat had devolved upon Defendant no.1 and he extended the charge over the same. 2D. Again on 15.03.2012, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹75.00 Lacs to ₹1,00,05,000/-. To

secure the loan, Defendant No.1 extended charge over the mortgaged property. 2E. Again on 12.04.2013, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹1,00,05,000/- to ₹164.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 extended charge over the mortgaged property. 2F. On 15.03.2014, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹164.00 Lacs to ₹235.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 extended charge over the mortgaged property. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests. On 29.02.2020, a sum of ₹4,55,79,257.81p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit. 2G. The Account of the Defendants was declared N.P.A. on 31.03.2015. The Applicant bank served Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 29.04.2015. However, the defendant no.1 approached the Bank with an OTS Proposal of ₹3.10Crores which was accepted by the bank vide sanction dated 05.05.2017. According to the terms of the sanction, defendant had to deposit a sum of ₹3,10,37,000/- in three installments towards the full and final settlement of the Loan Account by September 2018. The defendant failed to liquidate the amount and approached the bank for the extension of time and requested that the OTS Amount be revised and be allowed to deposit ₹1.80Crores by June 2019 which was accepted by the bank. The defendant again failed to liquidate the amount and approached the bank for the release of the mortgaged property. Bank acceded to the request but with a condition that the defendant would have to deposit ₹20.00Lacs and also execute a tripartite agreement between bank, defendant and the

proposed borrower. The defendant did not deposit the amount or executed the tripartite agreement and eventually, the OTS was revoked.

3. On 07.05.2024, sufficient time was granted to defendants to file Written Statement and affidavit of assets within the stipulated period of 30 days. They failed to file the Written Statement and affidavit of assets and the right of defendants was closed vide order dated 05.08.2024. 3A. On 26.11.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants admitted their signatures on the documents as well as the contents of the documents.

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Dar, Executive 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 the loan of ₹235.00 Lacs and on 29.02.2020, a sum of ₹4,55,79,257.81p was due.

6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹4,55,79,257.81p (Rupees Four Crores Fifty Five Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Eighty One Only) with interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 22.09.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the Defendants would be joint and several. However, the liability of defendant No.2 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹8.00 Lacs, the liability of defendant Nos. 3 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹25.00 Lacs and the liability of defendant Nos.4 and 5 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹40.00 Lacs. Defendant No.1 would be fully liable for the whole decretal amount. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para Nos.10 of the application as

well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly.

7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 22.09.2026, 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: 20.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA