Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED vs FAYAZ AHMAD MALLA on 15 October 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 206 of 2023
Date of Institution: 14.02.2020
Date of Decision: 15.10.2026
Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. at Immamsahab Shopian.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. Fayaz Ahmad Malla s/o Sanaullah Malla r/o Checki Sangran Imamsahib Shopian.
2. Manzoor Ahmad Khanday s/o Lassi Khanday s/o Barbugh Shopian
3. Bashir Ahmad Malla s/o Sanaullah Malla r/o Checki Sangran Shopian
4. Farooq Ahmad Wagay s/o Ab. Gani Wagay r/o Chanpora, Shopian.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants - ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of ₹26,50,794.02p with interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 14.02.2020.
ORDER
1. On 14.2.2020, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., filed the suit for the recovery of ₹26,50,794.02p with interest against Fayaz Ahm,ad Malla and others (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Shopian. However, vide order dated 10.03.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Court of Principal District Judge, Shopian to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 20.03.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹5.00Lacs to defendant no.1 in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as the guarantors. On 03.10.2013, at the request of Defendant no.1 the limit was enhanced from ₹5.00Lacs
Page 1 of 3
to ₹15.00Lacs. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 stood as the guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.01.2020, a sum of ₹26,50,794.02p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the plaint.
3. The defendant nos. 1and 3 had filed a written statement before the District Judge on 23.09.2021 which was adopted by Defendant nos.2 and 4 as well on 29.10.2021. The defendants have alleged that the bank has suppressed material facts and forged revenue papers; the loan was not disbursed in favour of Defendant no.1; defendant no.1 has been falsely implicated in the case; the documents have been fabricated. Hence, the OA be dimissed. 3A. After receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post on 15.04.2023, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 07.09.2026, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohsin Ul Haque, Authorized Officer, 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 ₹15.00Lacs and on 31.01.2020 a sum of ₹26,50,794.02p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹26,50,794.02p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Four and Two Paise Only) with interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 14.2.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be
Page 2 of 3
joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of 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 20.11.2026.
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:15.10.2026 Presiding Officer
DRT-1, Chandigarh
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…