JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs BASHIR AHMED WANI on 17 August 2026

ORDER

1. On 13.11.2021, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹85,28,380.36p with interest against Bashir Ahmad Wani and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge,

Budgam. However, vide order dated 20.02.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Principal District Judge, Budgam, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

2. Bank’s case is that on 17.05.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹40.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Khyber Brick Klin in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the C.C. Limit, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the above said C.C. Limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 15.05.2014. 2A.

granted a Term Loan of ₹18.00Lacs to defendant No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Khyber Brick Klin for Vehicle Purpose. To secure the Term Loan, defendant No.1 hypothecated vehicle (detailed in para no.5 and Annexure P-19) and also extended his charge over the property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors for the Term Loan vide Deed of Guarantee dated 07.01.2015. 2B. Again on 31.12.2016, at the request of the defendants, bank restructured the existing C.C. Limit of ₹40.00 Lacs and also granted W.C.D.L. of ₹8.00 Lacs (which was later merged with the C.C. Limit of Rs.40.00Lacs) and a WCTL of ₹9,08,209/- under Rehabilitation Package to Borrowers Hit by Riots/Disturbance-2016 to defendant No.1 for Business purpose. Defendant No.1 extended his charge over the property. 2C.

granted a fresh Term Loan of ₹0.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 for Business purpose under Sahuliat/Saral Loan Scheme. Defendant Nos.6 and 7 stood as guarantors for the Term Loan vide Letter of Guarantee dated 21.08.2018. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.10.2021, total sum of ₹85,28,380.36p was due from the

defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

3. The Civil Court sent summons to the defendants by registered post, which was duly served. After transfer of the suit, summonses were sent to the defendants. However, they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.08.2025. 3A. On 28.05.2022, Defendant No.1 to 3 and 5 had filed a joint written statement wherein they have alleged that the Bank has concealed material facts; the additional amount of ₹8.00 Lacs under Rehabilitation Package was never released in favor of the defendants, due to which the cheques could not be honored and defendant No.1 was deliberately put into losses. Due to the mal-treatment and unbecoming approach towards defendant No.1 led to stop in the operations of the business; The defendants had not received the demand notice under SARFAESI Act. Hence, the suit be dismissed.

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 loans under various schemes and on 31.10.2021, total sum of ₹85,28,380.36p (₹67,10,055.36p in C.C. Limit; ₹7,15,202/- in Term Loan (JCB) and ₹4,34,894/- in W.C.T.L. (Rehabilitation) and ₹6,68,229/- in Consumption Loan) was due.

6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹85,28,380.36p (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Eighty and Paise Thirty Six Only) with interest @14.75% per

annum with monthly rests from 13.11.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No.1 to 3 would be joint and several for the amount due in C.C. Limit. The liability of defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 would be joint and several for the amount due in Term Loan (JCB). The liability of defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 would be joint and several for the amount due in Consumption Loan. Defendant no.1 would be fully liable for the amount due in the W.C.T.L. (Rehabilitation). Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3 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 18.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage land 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: 17.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA