Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Syed Iqbal

DRT15 Sept 2023OA/156/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.31,56,499 outstanding under home loans, insurance coverage, and a top-up facility. The court declared the defendants jointly and severally liable despite the defense of pandemic-induced financial loss, as no evidence was adduced to rebut the bank's claim.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.31,56,499/- with interest; bank entitled to sale of mortgaged property and recovery from persons/properties.

State Bank of India versus Sri Syed Iqbal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.156 of 2022

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Bra n ch, (SARB) 2nd floor, TSRTC Bustand Complex, Koti, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager Applica nt

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Sri Syed Iqbal, s/o Sri Zameer Hussain, aged about 40 years, occ: business, H.No.2-9-838, Near Madina Masjid, Drivers colony, NGOs colony, Waddepally, Hanmakonda, Warangal city and dist -506 001.

¶7

Smt Sultana Shaheen, w/o Sri Syed Iqbal, aged about 35 years, occ: housewife, H.No.2-9-838, Near Madina Masjid, Drivers colony, NGOs colony, Waddepally, Hanmakonda,

¶8

Defendants

¶9

For the Defenda nts Sri D. Raghavulu

¶10

(OA.No.156 of 2022)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,56,49gl_ (Rupees Thirty one takhs Fifty Six thousand Four hundred and Ninety Eight only) i.e..

¶13

a) A sum of Rs.10,12,902/- under Home loan A/c.No.35166257823 together with interest @ 9.600lo p.a with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶14

b)A sum of Rs.16,236l- under Home loan insurance coverage together with interest @ 9.600lo p.a with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶15

c) A sum of Rs.21,27,360/_ under Home loan top up together with interest @ g.400/o p.a with monthry rests rrom the date of application till the date of realization;

¶16

and in default for sale of mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants herein are husband and wife respectivery avaired home roan of Rs.12,48,000/- and home roan insurance coverage of Rs.25,500/- vide arrgag-e1nci1t lettet $.9tp-! 19.08.2015. Defendant I i- 1,1 ':

¶18

no. 1 created uqrit:iils.?o.tsusu o*r',hb\itnmovabte property more

¶19

-K-€r#

¶20

(OA.No.155 of 2022)

¶21

fully described in the schedure to oA on 19.08,2015. After avairing the home loan, the defendants availed home top up loan against the security of property for a sum of Rs.21,20,000/_ vide arrangement letter dated 11.03,2020. Defendant no.1 extended mortgage which was earrier created mortgage on 19.08.2015 0ver immovabre property by executing Regd Memorandum for recording extension of mortgage by deposit of tiue deeds covering enhanced limits and creation of equitabre mortgage. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 31.03.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding.

¶22

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the said roan facirities and faired to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was crassified as NpA and issued regar notice dated 31.O3.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.31,56,49gl_ (Rupees Thirty one lakhs Fifty Six thousand Four hundred and Ninety Eight only) together -e.a .ryih:Eonthty '.r€#t,.,n" rests from date of with future interest @ iryli%: apprication r,l tne aa#ft{"aoEot.. oo. il 'n ,\i it* ii: l sstPzozt r, fo.; W

¶23

(OA.No.156 of 2022)

¶24

The Defendants No.1 & 2 filed written statement admitting the availment of roan from the Appricant bank and arso their riabirity to pay the loan amount. It is contended that the Applicant bank not issued any notices to defendants. It is further contended that due to covid 19 pandemic, the defendants sustained huge loss in business and admitted that the defendants courd not pay some instalments. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri^p. Madhava Rao, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 17 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.17. As against this, the defendants no.1 & 2 did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence.

¶26

Heard both the counsels,

¶27

I have perused the documents on record.

¶28

Now, the points

¶29

(OA.No.1s5 of 2022)

¶30

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are crearry mentioned in the statement of account filed by Appricant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for estabrishing their contentions.

¶34

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is ress than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.17 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants arg jointly and severally liable to ,l r. ,.. pay the OA amount 9.6 thc Appticant ;;fi,k. i;n: "' t.

¶35

t.
. 'i : 5i:P 2021 .: :i
.. . 5 - -.; .::. r. ,r:::
!.,.-:.r1.
''',. "',".... ., .ii*,?-,rii.ii
- y;.i,-a)_..::.1,

¶36

(OA.No.156 of 2022)

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶39

The Defendants are jointry and severaily fiable to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.31,56,499/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs Fifty Six

¶40

thousand Four hundred and Ninety Eight only) i.e..

¶41

a) A sum of Rs.10,12,902/- under Home loan A/c.No.35166257823 together with interest @ 9.600/o p.a from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.16,236l- under Home loan insurance coverage together with interest @ 9.600/o p.a from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶43

c) A sum of Rs.zL,27,360/- under Home loan top up together with interest @ 9.40olo p.a from the date of application till the date of realization; The applicant bank is enUtled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedule to OA.

¶44

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defenda nlS,toy.va rds realization of the debt due. r,' ''rli . , {.-\ t';' ! i:i .i:.-_ .:. !,|. 11. The Applicant Bank fd qntiUed to the costs ofthb oA. :: 15SEr;il -'i^l : -{ : ..-:' .'

¶45

t " ' {k., :'o" t-; "'- r'.' ;' .---^' :..'

¶46

(OA.No.155 of 2022)

¶47

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order,

¶48

13, Issue Recovery certificate acco rd in g ly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of Sept, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

'.i

rFiUE CCPY
^*::"-ffi'y

State Bank of India v. Sri Syed Iqbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Syed Iqbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Benex Industries

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Belur Ramgopal Prathyush Ram

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Malligari Srinivas Enterprises

M S Amruthamayee Milk Products versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India ( Formerly Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Mirror Advertising Agency

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vasantha Engineers @ Vasantaa Engineers