Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

DRT14 Nov 2023OA/241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT I Hyderabad allowed Originating Application No. 241/2022 filed by Bank of India. Held that defendants availed loans and failed to repay. Being appellants in advance, Appellant Bank succeeded to recover. Relieved for recovery of debt and costs.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint & several liability for Rs. 48,84,362.82 plus interest; authority to realize against schedule property and persons of Respondents 2-7.

Bank of India versus M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PREsIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.241 oJ 2(J22

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of India, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its constituted attorney Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Almalik Agro Tech^pvt ltd, H.no.5-9-47 / 71/A, Beside Masjid Lane, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 63. Or M/s. Almalik Agro Tech^pvt Ltd., Sy.No.22/ A, Kal bemal village, Nyalkal mandal, Zaheerabad, Medak - 5O2 256. 2. Syed Mohammad Abdul Qadeer, s/o Syed Abdul Hafeez, aged about 68 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, Deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad^* 500 063. 3. Mrs. Mohammed Begum Naheed, W/o Syed Mohd Abdul Qadeer, Aged flat no.302, about 63 years, occ: Moghul Apartments,business, 3a.\ H.No.5-9-59/18, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063. 14i'l{l'l/

¶8

(,OA.No.2.41/20221

¶9

Mr. Mohammed Abdul Basheer, s/o Syed Mohd Abdul eadeer, aged 37 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶10

Syed Mohammad Abdul Malik, s/o Syed Mohammed Abdul eadeer, aged about 42years, occ: business, Flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, Deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶11

Syed Mohammad Abdul Samad, s/o Syed Mohammed Abdul eadeer, aged about 39 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, Deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶12

Nazia Fathima, D/o Hidayatur Rahman Akbar, Aged about 39 years, occ: business, H.No.5-9-47l1 1/A, Beside Masjid lane, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶13

Defend a nts

¶14

Counsel for the Pa rties: For the Applicant Sri Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendants No.1to 6 Sri t\4.A. Shakeel Defendant no.7 Ex pa rte

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶17

recovery of a total sum of Rs.48,84,362.g2ps Ru ees Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Four thousand Th and

¶18

(oA.No.2a 1/2022)

¶19

paise Eighty two only) with future interest @ 10.600/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest (q) 2o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of schedule mentioned property as described in the OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a private Limited Company and defendant no.2 is the Managing director of the Company and defendants 3 to 7 are directors of the Company who availed cash credit facility of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 24.09.2012. To secure due repayment of above loan, the defendants executed demand promissory note for Rs.20,00 lakhs, letter of undertaking, agreement, hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 24.09.2012 and 25.g.201.2 respectively. Defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 availed term loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs on 14.OB.2O2O. To secure due repayment of above loan, the defendants executed demand promissory note, letter of installment, MCLR agreement, letter of declaration, letter of undertaking, hypothecation cum loan agreement datcd 14.0U.2020. Further the defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 availed FITL of Rs.1,10,969.73ps on 30.03.2021 and executed necessary documents.

¶21

It is submitted that the Defendants have ava iled the said loan up th e repayment , i 1,1

¶22

lO^{A.No.)41/)022.)}

¶23

schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 2l-.l_ 1.2021 and issued legal notice dated 14.02.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularlzed the account, and the Applicant bank issued possession notice but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.48,84,362.82ps (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Four thousand Three hundred Sixty Two and paise Eighty two only) with future interest @ 10.600/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2^o/o p.a from date of application till rea lization. Hence the OA.

¶24

2' The Defendant No. 1to 6 filed written statements and denied all the averments made in OA. It is submitted that they are not in possession of schedule mentioned properties which are not applicable. It is alleged that the covid term loan is not part and parcel of the alleged term loan. It is averred that the alleged rate of interest as not as per the RBI guidelines. It is also alleged that Star GECL term loan is different from original loan and the applicant is barred from clubbing both the loans together. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support of its aff idavit duly sworn in by Srl R. as AW.1 and

¶26

loA.No.24L/2022)

¶27

through him marked 38 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.38. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert the Chief Evidence.

¶28

Heard both the counsels.

¶29

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants 1 to 7 ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants In the Written statements, 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 clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants hav any material docu ments to

¶35

show their bonafides for e ntio n s.

¶36

(OA.No.241l2022)

¶37

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 less 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 recitars Ex.A.1 to A.38 stood unchailenged and unrebutted' The Applicant bank crearry estabrished that the defendants are jointly and severaily riabre to pay the oA amount to the Appricant bank.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

B' In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as u nd er:

¶40

i) The Defendants 1 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.48,84,362.82ps (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Four thousand Three hundred Sixty Two and paise Eighty two only) with future interest @ 10.60% p,a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶41

ii) The applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the schedule mentioned property for recovery of the debt due.

¶42

iii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 7 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towa rds realizati

¶43

//4.

¶44

/*
6
gi
ri1
)'Yz rd
\(n.',x
\i

¶45

(oA.No.24U2022)

¶46

iv) The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounccd by me in the open court on this the 14th day of Nov, 2023)

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUH CCIPY

Bank of India v. M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Transport

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mr Rambabu Kasaraboina

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Star Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Shesharao Rathod

State Bank of India versus Smt Sai Krupa Thummala

M S Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited