JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs ABDUL AHAD BHAT on 12 August 2026

ORDER

1. On 05.03.2021, J&K Bank Ltd., filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.68,62,772.75p with interest against Abdul Ahad Bhat & Others (defendants) in the Civil Court, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 09.12.2022, 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 20.01.2016, it had granted a loan of Rs.15.00Lacs, to Defendant no. 1 in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. On 01.01.2018, the Bank had granted W.C.T.L. Facility of Rs.3.00Lacs to Defendant no.1, which was merged with the C.C. Limit of Rs.15.00Lacs totaling to Rs.18.00Lacs. The C.C. limit was enhanced

from time to time, lastly enhanced to Rs.30.00Lacs on 09.04.2018. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para no. 6 of the plaint). Defendant nos. 2 to 4 stood as the guarantors for the C.C. Limit. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests. Besides, the above-mentioned loans, Defendant no. 1 had also availed a Credit Card Limit of Rs.2.00Lacs from the bank. On 31.07.2021, a total sum of Rs.68,62,772.75p 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 receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post on 29.03.2023, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 11.12.2024, they were proceeded ex parte.

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaweed Ahmad Shera, Authorised Officer, along with the 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 different schemes and on 31.07.2021, a sum of Rs.68,62,772.75p (Rs.61,63,309.01p in the Cash Credit; Rs.1,18,477/- in the Term Loan (W.C.T.L.) and Rs.5,80,986.74p in Credit Card Account) was due.

6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of Rs.68,62,772.75p (Rupees Sixty Eight Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Seventy Five Paise Only) with interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests from 05.03.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Defendant no.4 would liable for the amount due in the C.C. Limit. The liability of Defendant no.1

would be for the whole decretal amount whereas the liability of Defendant no.2 and 3 would be up to the extent of amount due in the C.C. Account and W.C.T.L. Account. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para no. 6 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

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

8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 14.09.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage 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: 12.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh