Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Syed Hajee Hussain

DRT16 Nov 2023OA/350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of dues arising from housing loans, SBI Suraksha loans, and home top-up loans, the Tribunal held that the bank proved its case through certified evidence and ordered the defendants to jointly and severally pay the principal, interest, and costs. The Tune copy

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 34,62,953/- with interest and costs; permission to proceed against mortgaged properties; Issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Syed Hajee Hussain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.35O of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Ba n k of I nd ia, Stressed Assets Recovery Bra nch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Syed Hajee Hussain, s/o Syed Munawar H u ssa in, major, male, R/o plot no.67, Adarshnagar, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy dist - 502 220

¶10

Also at

¶11

G-1, Sapphire Castle, P& T Colony, near Glendale Academy, Suncity, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad- 86.

¶12

Smt Syed Naseema Begum, w/o Syed Hajee Hussain, major, male, R/o Plot no.67, Adarshnagar, Za h ee ra bad, Sangareddy district * 5O2 22O.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

G-1, Sapphire Castle, P& T Colony, near Glendale Academy, Suncity, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad- 86.

¶15

,ffi<br>1 E No,l 7n2? *
{:
endants
W,,-.fi#

¶16

(oA. No.350/2022 )

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendants

¶20

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶21

Exparte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.34,6z,gsg/- (Rupees Thirty four Lakhs sixty Two thousand Nine hundred and Fifty three only ) l.e', A sum of Rs.26,48,278/^ under housing loan with interest (o) ll.75o/o p.a ; a sum of Rs.1-,83,543/- under sBI Suraksha with interest @11.75% p.a and a sum of Rs.6,31,132/- under home top up loan with interest @ L00/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA.

¶24

2' As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed Housing loan with a limit of Rs.25.00 lakhs, SBI suraksha roan limit of Rs.2,32,ooo/- and SBI Home top up loan of Rs.6.50 lakhs on 30,11.2015 and 15.09.2017 respectively. The defendants executed oan agreement for home loan and defendant n .&xecu agreement dated

¶25

(oA. No.3s0/2022)

¶26

30'11.2015. The defendants deposited titre deeds rerating to oA schedule property bearing Regd. Sale deed No.65L3/2015 dated 04.12.20Ls and created equitabre mortgage by deposit of tiile deeds. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 30.05.2022 and demand notice dated or.06.20122. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶27

Defendants l and 2 called absent and set exparte on 21,.09.2023.

¶28

4' Sri P. Sandeep, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Defendants called a bsent
bstantiate the case of
the Applicant Bank, AW.
k"1,;ffi^,;rx nk was exa m ined
J 16 iltiu rnp Jq
a\r
.-d. - .j
W,r,$9

¶33

(OA.No.3s0/2022)

¶34

and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. 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.

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.34,62,953/- (Rupees Thirty four Lakhs Sixty Two thousand Nine hundred and Fifty three only ) i.e., A sum of Rs.26,48,27Bl- under housing loan with interest @ ll.75o/o p.a; a sum of Rs.1,83,543/- under SBI Suraksha with interest @11.75% p.a and a sum of Rs.6,31,132l- under home top up loan with interest @ 10% p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

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

¶38

the Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants toWdffigedtz&fn\f,tne debt due.

¶39

...:e ,

¶40

rhe Appricant Bank is ".rfidiL.nu l* i[,, "r;;b 1.cNnymlr ""^/'i r^r.Ij 4 " -.- :,iⁱ fua#

¶41

(oA.No.350/2022)

¶42

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

¶43

14, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly,

¶44

15, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrccted, signed and pronounccd by me in thc opcn court on this thc 16th day of Nov, 2023)

sd/^_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE COPY

**r=ffi,

State Bank of India v. Sri. Syed Hajee Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Syed Hajee Hussain

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

K N Bhasker Ji versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstructions

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. M. Kalpana

Nacharam Ramesh versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vansan Hospitality Services

State Bank of India versus Ms Aishwarya Impex