Allowed

State Bank of India v. Syed Muzaffer Hussain

DRT7 Dec 2023OA/352/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery depositing of Rs.35.59 lakhprincipal interest on a housing arrangement settlement top-u failure to show in the bank test saw the total applicable adjustment interest 12.75p.a and 10.info.prat and the order for the delay in the notice and recovery and the bank's recovery notwithstanding the delay in the notice and recovery. The order granted the recov

What did the court decide?

Directly ordered payment of Rs.35,59,314/= with interest and costs; bank empowered to proceed against mortgaged property and personal properties of defendants.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7rH DAy OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.352 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Syed Muzaffer Hussain,

¶10

s/o Syed Munawar Hussain, major, male, r/o plot no.67, Adarshnagar,

¶11

Zaheerabad, Sangareddydist - 502 220.

¶12

Also at

¶13

l-6- 713 / 7, Adarshnagar, Zaheerabad, Sangareddydist- 502 220.

¶14

Syed Habeeb Sultana, w/o Syed Muzaffar Hussain, major, female, R/o Plot no.67, Adarshnagar Zaheerabad, Sangareddydist- 502 229?':.'''' " ---_ .-'r ,- .t ,c:i . .:*<11i"'..' ,- :^:,..,',:l(, Also at .r..-:..;,"'u-'t.p "^{;;r,'</sup> Flat no.101, 1't floor, Saphire SAstie, ,l' , ' :,i \t,^ Plotno.164l6,P&Tcolony, ii^"- tl Bandlaguda, Rajendranagar,'i^,': 0 I [tC ?11?t li Hyderabad - 500 068, i.l ..^{_-l$efendants} '.. .e r, -;^.>'.;! :.ift. . ....,,:;i'^':''j i' Counsel for the Pa rties:rties: Vr'rii',:,i!i"i: For the Applicant : Sri:P,V;'Satyanarayana For the Defendants 1 & 2 : Sri T. Vijay Kumar}

¶15

Counsel for the Pa rties:rties:

¶16

(OA. Mo.3s2l2022 )

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35.58,314l- (Rupees Thirty five Lakhs Fifty Eight thousand Three hundred and Fourteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.27,72,344/- + Rs.t,23,894/-for housing loan with interest @ ll.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.6,62,076/- for SBIHome top up loan with interest @ 10olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA 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 defendantsavailed housing loan facility with a limit of Rs.25,00 lakhs, SBI suraksha loan of Rs.1,34,000/- and SBI Home Top up loan limit of Rs.6.50 lakhs on 30.11.2015 and 15.09.2017 respectively. The defendants executed agreement for home loan dated 30.11.2015 and defendant no.1 executed guarantee agreement dated 30.11.2015. The defendants deposited tifle deeds relating to OA schedule property bearing Regd Sale deed no.6516/2015 dated 04.12.2015 with an intention to create equitable mortgage of schedule property. After availing the loan facilities, lhe defendants .ff:-.failed to comply the terms $lgij,^{,ii€l't\rhe appticant} bank WAS constrained to classify the accou t4.05.2022 and . issued demand notice Oateo rqop.!Q[zTnprspi6 f several req u ests

¶20

(OA.Mo.3s2/20221

¶21

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Counsel for Defendants filed vakalath but not filed Written statements.

¶23

Shri SandipParidala, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited releva nt documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Though Defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire written statement. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, orficiar of the Applicant Bank was examined 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 _clajm made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Aobi;bE}'itk is entired to recover the claim made in the oA witn ruturJin,.."h)fo *or.

gTciLrn;

*;,

(oA.Mo.3s2/20zzl

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.35,59,3L41- (Rupees Thirty five Lakhs Fifty Eight thousand Three hundred and Fourteen only) i,e,, a sum of Rs.27,72,344/- + Rs.1,23,894/- for housing loan with interest @ ll.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.6,62,0761- for SBI Home top up loan with interest @ 10o/o p,a from date of filing of OAtill realization.

¶33

i) The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

ii) the Applicant Bank is arso entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

iii) The Applicant Bank is entiUed to the costs of the OA.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open )ec.,2023)

¶40

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Syed Muzaffer Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Syed Muzaffer 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Vallabh Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Thirumala Filling Station

State Bank of India versus M/S . Pranavi Agencies

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Ms Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Arcil) versus M/S. Maqdoom Moghny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks