Allowed

Federal Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Hazer Alias Mohammed Haji

DRT20 Nov 2023OA/286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Federal Bank Limited for recovery of dues amounting to approximately 38 lakhs from the principal and co-borrowers who defaulted on loans. The claim was accepted based on the bank's documentary evidence and the defendants' absence.

What did the court decide?

Present OA stands allowed with interest and costs; Applicant Bank at liberty to sell schedule properties and proceed against other properties for unrecovered dues.

Federal Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohammed Hazer Alias… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 20th day of November, ZO23

¶3

Present: Sri IMTIAZ ALI

Presiding Officer

O.A.No.28612022

BETWEEN:

The Federal Bank Limited

¶8

Branch at-

¶9

B.C. Road, Ground Floor

¶10

Hindustan Towers

¶11

Opposite LIC Office

¶12

Santhi Angadi, Kaikamba

¶13

B.C. Road, Bantwal Taluk Dakshina Kannada District-574 2L9 Represented by it's Senior Manager Sri Roshan Steevan Pereira

¶14

APPLICANT

¶15

ANQ:

¶16

Sri Mohammed Hazer

@ Mohammed Haji

Aged about 66 years

S/o. Sri Ismail

R/at House No.3-116, Manchi Bantwal Taluk

¶21

Dakshina Kannada District-S74 342

¶22

2. Smt. Seleem

¶23

Aged about 57 years W/o.Sri Mohammed Hazer

¶24

@ Mohammed Haji R/at House No.3-116, Manchi Bantawal Taluk Dakshina Kannada District-574 342

¶25

DEFENDANTS

¶26

Counsels on record/appeared fqr:

¶27

Applicant : Smt. Veena R Rai Defendants : Ex-parte

¶28

oA.No.286/2022

¶29

FINAL ORDER

¶30

The^present OA^{have been filed by the Applicant Bank} under Section^{19 of the Recoveryof Debts and Bankruptcy} Act, 1993,^{seeking recovery of moneyof Rs'37,99'OO2'48} Rupees thirty-seven^{lakh ninety-nine thousandtwo and} paise forty-eight only)^{together withcosts, interest' etc'}

¶31

The case of the^{Applicant Bank is that, the Defendant} No.1 is the^{Principal Borrowerand DefendantNo'2is the Co-} borrower have^{approached the Applicant Bank for agricultural} Cash Credit Loan/FKCC^{Loanand Housing Loan' Accordingly'} the Applicant^{Bank considered the request of the Defendants} and sanctioned the^{agriculturalCash CreditLoan/FKCCLoan} of Rs.8,00,000/-^{on 27.O8.2O14 and HousingLoan of} Rs.18,00,000/- on^{12.02.2016under loan Account} no.20715500000095,^{in terms of the loan agreements'In} order to secure^{the loan, the Defendantshave executed} various documents,^{viz., On Demand PromissoryNotes'} Security Delivery^{Letters, Agreement for AgriculturalLoans'} Federal housing^{Scheme Agreement,Memorandumof} Deposit of Title^{Deeds,Sale deeds, Acknowledgment of} Debts, Confirmation^{of Balance OutstandingLetters, letters of} undertaking^etc.,

¶32

¶33

OA.No.286/2022

¶34

Further, the Applicant Bank submits that, as per the agreement executed by the Defendants, the Housing Loan of Rs.18,00,000/-, to be repaid within 46 months, in equated monthly installments of Rs.57 ,937 /- @ the rate of interest 9.83o/o per annum each.

¶35

Further, the Defendants have agreed to repay the above loan with variable rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office / Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the accounts regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶36

The Defendants after utilising the said loan, they have failed and/or neglected to repay the aforesaid financial assistances granted to the Defendants. In view of the continued default, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 13.04.2OI1 . Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has issued the recall Notice dated 13.10.2O2L and Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 04.08.2017 to the Defendants demanding to repay the outstanding dues. In spite of receipt of repeated Notices, the

¶37

¶38

OA.No.2A6/2022

¶39

Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding dues. Hence recovery process is initiated to recover the dues.

¶40

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.37,99,OO2.48 (Rupees thirty-seven lakh ninetynine thousand two and paise forty-eight only).

¶41

After filing this OA, Summons was sent and served to the Defendants through RPAD. When Defendants are called out, absent and hence, placed ex parte.

¶42

B. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, it,s Associate Vice President, Sri Shrikrishna Sharma. K has filed his affidavit by way of evidence the same was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1 and list of documents came to be marked at Ex.A2 and 22 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to A24.

¶43

No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

¶44

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/ Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶45

¶46

OA.No.28612022

¶47

Fotlowing points arise for my consideration:

¶48

1. Whether Plaintiff / Applicant Bank proves its case as contended in the plaint / application?

¶49

1. What Order?

¶50

L2. For the following reasons, I answer the abovereferred points in the following manner:

¶51

REASONS

¶52

The Associates Vice president of the Applicant Bank came to be examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above-referred Ex.A3 to A24 which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present oA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent, hence it is to be construed that Defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the Applicant Bank in the present OA.

¶53

Therefore, for these reasons, present OA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the Applicant Bank.

oA.No.286/2022

ORDER

Present OA stands allowed as prayed for with interest and costs.

¶58

In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the said OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the Schedule properties in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶59

In spite of sale of the schedule properties, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the persons and other properties of the Defendants in accordance with law.

¶60

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of Calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s, if any, paid by the Defendants and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the OA, to enable the office to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

¶61

Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the needful as required under the law forthwith.

¶62

OA.No.286/2022

¶63

The office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free

¶64

copy of this order to the parties concerned

¶65

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2023)

¶66

(rMTrAZ ALr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

AW- 1 Sri Shrikrishna Sharma. K Associate Vice President of the Applicant

¶69

Bank

¶70

Ex.A-1 Affidavit of AW-1 Ex.A-2 List of Documents

¶71

Ex.A-3 to A-24 22 documents

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶73

_ Nit

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶75

¶76

,rrh'rr;' PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-f, Bengaluru

¶77

Federal Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Hazer Alias Mohammed Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Hazer Alias Mohammed Haji

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

Rbl Bank Limited versus Rajesh Gupta

State Bank of India versus Abhishek Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus Mohit Kumar Arora

Canara Bank versus C K Karigowda

Icici Bank Limited versus Prashanth J

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh Harnek Singh