Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd Toufiq Hussain

DRT17 May 2023OA/354/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. for recovery of a debt of Rs.28,34,239.46 plus interest against the defendant who remained ex-parte. The court held the claim was clinched by the evidence affidavit and documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.28,34,239.46 with interest; Applicant entitled to enforce against properties and costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd Toufiq Hussain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶2

PRESENT; SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB, (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

oA.NO. 354 0F 2022

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., H. No. 1-10-60/3, 3d Floor, Suryodaya Complex Opp: Shoppers Stop Begumpet Hyderabad-500016. Represented by its Manager-Legal

¶5

.....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mohd. Touflo Hussain S/o Hussain Mohammed Age: 51 years, Occ: Business H. No.8-13-140/L3L/B Kings Colony, Shastripuram Hyderabad, Telangana-500 001.

¶8

Also at: Mohd. Touflo Hussain S/o Hussain Mohammed Age: 51 years, Occ: Business C/o City Point Tea Snacks and Panshop, R/o 3-6-518/1 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana - 500 029.

¶9

...... Defendant.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.N. Sudarshan, Lotus Law Associates. Defenda nt : Ex-Dafte.V/*a

¶11

oA.3s4l2022

¶12

:: ORDER::

¶13

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoveryof a} sum of Rs.28,34,239.46Ps^{from the defendanttogetherwith} future interest @16.50%^{p.a. compoundedwith monthlyrests} from the date^{of application till date of realisation'}

¶14

2, The defendant was served with^{summons.He was set ex-parte} on 30.08.2022 as called absent^{and no representation'}

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined^{K. AkshayKumar,Manager-} and marked^{B documentsthrough him as Ex' A1}

¶16

Legal, as AW-1 to Ex.AB.

¶17

Heard the Ld.^{Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the} material^placed on^record.

¶18

tr The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶19

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the OA claim against^the Defendant?

¶20

As stated supra, the^{Defendantremainedex-parte.The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with the^{recitals in the documents} viz., Ex. A.1 to Ex.A.8 marked on^{behalfof the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of the Applicant^{Bank against the Defendant'} Hence, I hold that the Defendant is^{liable to pay to the} Applicant Bank the OA claim with costs.

¶21

No.354/2022 is

¶22

1. In the result, the^present Original Application allowed as under:^- ew',o

¶23

oA.354/2022

¶24

i) the Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.28,34,239.46ps along with interest @L2o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; and

¶26

iii) the Applicant Bank is entiiled for the costs.

¶27

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

C^ommunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Llrctated to the steno, corrected, stgned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of May, 2023)

¶30

ffi/,,r,r (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd Toufiq Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Mohd Toufiq 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

Similar cases

Sri M Anil Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

Shailendra S/O Purushottam Mangal, versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Santpal Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S R. R. Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus Sukhwant Singh

Sanjay Gokal @ Sanjay Sharma versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited