Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Suraka Educational Society

DRT9 Dec 2022OA/65/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte order, the Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of a loan against three respondent defendants. The court held the defendants jointly liable for the balance debt after deducting proceeds from vehicle sales.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly liable to pay balance sum with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and properties; recovery certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Suraka Educational Society — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE O9TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2022

¶4

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

oA.NO. 65 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

HDFC Bank Limited Having its Office at 1-10-60/3, 4th Floor (4A), Suryodaya Complex Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000 16 Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

Versu s

¶10

Suraka Educational Society Rep by its Authorised Signatory Shaikh Shaidraza Muzaffar Hussain Plot No.10, Sy. No.1-1 to 13,17, 19/20, 2t, t2, 10,27 A & B Marigold Apartments, Ground Floor Huda Trade Centre, Nallagandla Road, Serilingampally, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana - 500019.

¶11

Kidzonia School, Rep by its President Shaikh Shaidraza Muzaffar Hussain Near More Market, Nallangndla Serilingampally Hyderabad, Telangana - 500019,

¶12

Shaikh Shaidraza Muzaffar Hussain S/o Hussain Shaik Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business Flat No.403, Regent Park, Nallangndla Serilingampally, Lingampally Hyderabad, Telangana - 500019. ...Defendants : M.V. Kini

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants '. Ex-parte %*.1t

¶14

oA.5sl20.22

¶15

::qLL LB::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA for the recoveryof a total} sum of Rs.30,61,426.59^{Ps jointly and severally from the} Defendants together with future^interest @24o/o^{p.a. with monthly} rests from 04.01.2022 till the date of^{realisation along with costs} and for sale of OA schedule^{hypothecated vehicles.}

¶17

The Defendants 1 to 3^{were served summons.They were set ex-} parte on 30.08.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined V.V.^{Pavan Kumar,Legal Manager as} AW-1 and marked 20 documents through^{him as Ex. A'1 to Ex.} A.20. It is submitted that an amount^{of Rs.4,22,713'40Ps was} realized on L7.02.2022 by sale of Item 1 and 3^{OA Schedule} hypothecated vehicles.

¶19

Heard the Ld, Counsel for the Applicant^Bank and^{perused the} material^placed on record.

¶20

tr The point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the balance claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hypothecated vehicle?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.20 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the OA claim minus Rs.4,22r773.4O Ps against the Defendants 1 to 3. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs. fu'1v' i,/ --\>^-

¶23

oA.6512022

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.65/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.30,61,426.59 Ps minus Rs.4,22,773,4O Ps realized on 77.02.2022 by sale of OA schedule ltems 7 and 3 hypothecated vehicles wilh interest @!2o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) The claim of the Applicant Bank is secured by way of hypothecation of Item No.2 of OA schedule vehicle and the Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for realization of its balance debt;

¶27

iii) The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and^properties of defendants for realization of its balance dues;

¶28

iv) The Applicant Bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned,

¶32

(Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the Ogth day of December,2022)

¶33

,K,"

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Suraka Educational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Suraka Educational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ashish So Arun Kumarwar versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

State Bank of India versus Gautam Kumar and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sidhi Vinayak Vision and Others

K G Bhingradiya Vidayalay and Ors. versus Varthana Finance Private Limited

Rajesh Prasad Singh versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

Punjab National Bank versus B Sridhar