Allowed

Bank of India v. Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed

DRT25 Oct 2023OA/204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant Bank challenged a conciliation order and sought recovery of a term loan defaulting. Tribunal found the bank established its claim via witness and documents, allowing the original Application Order for debt recovery with interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.26,59,357.27 with future interest; Applicant entitled to sell mortgaged property and proceed against person/properties; Recovery certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O4 ol 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bank of India, Malakpet branch, Malakpet, Saidabad mandal, Hyderabad dist-36, Represented by its constituted attorney Sri Punna Raja Shekar

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed, s/o Gaffer Khan Mohd, aged 46 years,

¶9

occ: business, R/o H.No.2-3-474/41/7/8, Akash nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶10

Skri Rasheeddullah Khan Mohd, S/o Gaffer Khan Mohd, aged 40^yrs, Occ: business, 2-3-47 4/4U l, Akash nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶11

Smt Rubina Afroze, D/o Mohammed Ahmed Ali,

¶12

Aged 45 years, occ: business,

¶13

Defendants

¶14

(oA. No.20al2022)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant Sri D. Brahma Reddy For the Defendants 1 & 3 Exparte Defendant no.2 Sri R.V. Subba Rao

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of.Rs.26,59,357.27ps (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Three hundred Fifty seven and^paise Twenty seven only) with future interest @ l1.2Oo/o p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed term loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs for meeting their business requirements vide sanction letter dated 04.07.2016. Defendants 1 to 3 are joint borrowers, The defendants executed demand promissory note for Rs.30.00 lakhs, bearer letter, installment letter, term loan agreement .Oat-fiffi-@qrO. fhe d'efendants 1 & 2 '"\rrQ\

¶20

irnmovab #; rord6|[l scribed in schedule to

¶21

OA. The defendants exequted a meffiorandumoflldeposit of title deeds i]?J

¶22

(OA.No.20412022)

¶23

registered as document no.255512076 dated 06,07.2016in SRO office, Chikkadpally. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 31.03,2021 and issued notice dated 03.04.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Defendants 1 & 3 called absent and set exparte on 26.10.2022. WS of Defendant no.2 not filed hence the right of filing WS was forfeited on 79.07.2023.

¶25

Shri T. Sheshadri, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex,A.1 to A.14.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶28

Defendants 1& 3 called absent and set exparte. WS of Defendant no.2 not filed. To su bstantiate tEr€le.cas€ of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official -.r:. of the Applica nt Ban'k w a rs examined and he exhibited relevant ,-. ...: . "^{- '.} "] ',^., lll i ::Yr r{. ,^. '.; \ .'.' : . ^:l':' .' I li,, i ---

¶29

(oA.No.204/2022)

¶30

documents as Ex.A1 to A.14. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶32

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.26,59,357.27ps (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine thousand Three hundred Fifty seven and paise Twenty seven only) with future interest @ 11.20olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶34

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due,

¶35

L2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of -^{.:--":- ;:-} .-.7$*\.1

¶37

receipt of order.

¶38

.-.7$*\.1
"+ir.,.:iei

¶39

(OA.No.204l2022)

¶40

14, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2sth day of Oct, 2023)

¶43

sd/-

¶44

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

2 s 0cT 2023

¶46

TRUE COPY
,"","hffiil,n'u
oRl,t, HyoERABai. - ,t

Bank of India v. Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Smt Dumpala Srilatha

Arcil versus M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.

M S Sri Kalyana Chakravarthy Rice Mill versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Dumpala Ramadevi

State Bank of India, versus Sri v. Ram Mohan

State Bank of India versus Sri Chennaboina Naresh