Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Mr Ubed Ullah Shareef

DRT6 Dec 2022OA/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's application for recovery of Rs. 35,18,269.78 with interest, holding the bank established its claim despite the Defendants' absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 35,18,269.78 plus 14% p.a. interest and costs.

What the court decided

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Mr Ubed Ullah… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 6rH DAy OF DECEMBER,2022

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.93 ol2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

Canara bank, Branch Office at Chikkadpally, l-I-tB) / t7, Jhansi lodge building, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 020. Represented by its authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Ubed Ullah Sharef, s/o Sri Jaffer Shareef,

¶10

aged about 37 yrs, occ: Engineer, R/o D.No.1-4-77L/t, Opp Sri Sai Raja Theatre, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶11

Mr. Jaffer Shareef, s/o Sri Yakoob Shareef, aged about 77 yrs, occ: business, R/o D.No.1-4-77U1, Opp Sri Sai Raja Theatre, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶12

Mr. Mohammed Yakoob, s/o Late Md. Raj Mohammed, yrs,,occ: Retd RTC 12/L/5, AnjayaNaar, state. Defendants

¶13

loA.e3/20221

¶14

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant SmtTara ng in iPisipati For the Defendants Exparte

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,18,269.78ps (Rupees Thirty five lakhs Eighteen thousand Two hundred Sixty nine and paise Seventy Eight only) with interest @ !4o/o p.a from 29.03.2022 till the date of realization.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 as borrow and defendant no.2 being father of defendant no.1 as co-obrigantand defendant no.3 as guarantor availed educational loan of Rs.7.00 lakhs for studies of defendant no.1 in UK on 23.tL.2007. Defendants no.1 & 2 executed undertaking letter dated 20.L2.2007. Defendant no.3 who stood as guarantor executed guarantee agreement in favour of applicant n 20.72.2007. After availing the loan facility, the defendants ply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was

¶18

to classify the account as NpA and issued demand notice

¶19

) i B6t dffi.ot.zozz. Inspite of several requests and demands, the not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

(oA.93/20221

¶21

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 22.09.2022.

¶22

Shri Raju Naik, Assistant Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶23

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶26

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶27

prayed for?

¶28

The defendants were cafled absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to 4.2t. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has

¶29

estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the

¶30

iure interest and costs.
<br>It, tl*e\brese nt OA is allowed with costs, as under:
?ll
,4ll
t,;-//
.::,

¶31

(oA.e3/20221

¶32

v. The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total of Rs.35,1g,269.7gps (Rupees Thirty five lakhs Eighteen thousand Two hundred Sixty nine and paise Seventy Eight only) with interest @ !4o/o p.a from 29.03.2022 till the date of realization.

¶33

i) the Applicant Bank is also entiiled to proceed against the person

¶34

and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

ii) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

iii) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the

¶37

date of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶40

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶41

court on this the 6th day of Dec., 2022)

¶42

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE COPY
Wu''
asst. aYg{*at (Uc)
DRT-!, IiYDF.RABAD, ' '

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Mr Ubed Ullah Shareef

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Mr Ubed Ullah Shareef

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

Ms Gyanodaya Products versus Axis Bank

Smt Pustakala Damuji Kanekar versus Orange City Housing Finance Limited

Ms Aditya Chankya Group versus Bank of Baroda

Canara Bank versus Srinivasan health and Educational

Ms Maa Dharmawati Enterprises and Others versus Punjab National Bank

Injamuri Arun Vilasini versus Union Bank of India