JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs M/S SUMIT ORNAMENT HOUSE on 25 August 2026

ORDER

1. On 12.09.2015, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.3,13,05,045.35p with interest against M/s Sumit Ornament House and others (defendants) in the Court of Learned Principal District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 05.04.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

2. Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship concern of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.3 to 8 are the mortgagors and defendant Nos.3 to 9 stood as guarantors. Bank’s case is that on 20.09.2010, it had granted a Term Loan of Rs.35 lacs and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.114 lacs to defendant No.1, through its proprietor, for business purpose. On 29.12.2010, Bank enhanced the Term Loan from Rs.35 lacs to Rs.80 lacs and Cash Credit Limit from Rs.114 lacs to Rs.150 lacs. To secure the loan, defendant No.1, through its proprietor, had hypothecated its assets (fully detailed in Para No.11 of the plaint) and defendant Nos.3 to 8 had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in Para Nos.7 and 8 of the plaint). Defendant Nos.3 to 9 stood as Guarantors for the above facilities vide Guarantee Deed dated 04.01.2011. The Term Loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests and the Cash Credit Limit was chargeable to interest @13.25% per annum with monthly rests. The account of the defendants turned NPA on 31.03.2014. On 31.07.2015, a sum of Rs.3,13,05,045.35p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

3. On 10.03.2016, defendant Nos.3 to 6 and 9 filed their written statement and the same was also adopted by defendant Nos.1 and 2, wherein they alleged that the suit has not been filed by an authorized

person. They have alleged that the deed of guarantee is inadmissible and that the defendants were made to sign on blank documents and moreover, the copies of the documents have never been supplied to the defendants. The defendants have denied the case of the Bank.

4. Vide order dated 11.01.2017, defendant Nos.7 and 8 were proceeded ex parte in the Court of Learned Principal District Judge, Jammu.

5. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Vivek Gupta, Senior Executive 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 a Term Loan of Rs.80 lacs and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.150 lacs and on 31.07.2015, a sum of Rs.3,13,05,045.35p (Term Loan: Rs.69,10,987/-; Cash Credit Limit: Rs.2,43,94,058.35p) was due.

7. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.3,13,05,045.35p (Rupees Three Crores Thirteen Lacs Five Thousand Forty-Five and Paise Thirty-Five Only) with interest @16.75% per annum with monthly rests from 12.09.2015, 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 and mortgaged properties (fully detailed in Para Nos.7, 8 and 11 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 28.09.2026.

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: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH