Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Syed Nisaruddin

DRT26 Sept 2023OA/67/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, the Tribunal allowed HDFC Bank Ltd.'s claim for recovery of Rs. 65,90,688.15 against two defendants who were tried ex parte. The Bank was directed to file a cost memo and issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 65,90,688.15 with future interest at 8.85% p.a., proceed against hypothecated assets/person/property, and bank to be paid costs.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Syed Nisaruddin — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 26th DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER,2023}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MN4ESHWAR^{KoTHE,B.Com.,L.LB. (Hons.), M A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Orlginal Application No: 67^{OF 2022}

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd., Having its office at 1-10-60/3, 3Ro Floor, Suryodaya complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016. Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr.Syed Nisaruddin S/o.Syed Vikaruddin, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Proprietor of Zed Exhibits System, R/o.H.No.5-6-158/1, New AghaPura, Nampally, Hyderabad^- 500001.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Mr.Syed Nisaruddin, O.No.2-4-97 /2/8, Ashok Vihar, Upparpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District-500030.

¶10

Mrs.Maria Mateen Wo.Syed^Nisaruddin, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o.H.No.5-6-158/1, New Aghapura, Nampally, Hyderabad-500001.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

O.No.2-4-97 /2/8, Ashok Vihar, Upparpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District-500030.

¶13

Defendants ru'

¶14

oa.6712022

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant

¶16

Defendants

¶17

I.4r. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶18

Expa rte

¶19

:: ORDER::

¶20

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.65,90,688.15ps from the defendants joinHy and severally with future interest @ 18olo p.a. with monthly rests from date of application till th( alons with

¶21

costs, and in defautt, ,". r"," "r;l"rt"nl:Jr::::::

¶22

Summons served on D1 and 2 returned with endorsement Refused, hence deemed to be served, They were set exparte on 75.09.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined M.Meenakshi, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 23 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.23.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule assefsT

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.23 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable

¶28

(/ '*'q-

¶29

oa.6712022

¶30

to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs,

¶31

In the result, the present Original Applicatio n No.67/2O22 is allowed as under; -

¶32

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 65,90,688.15ps with future interest @ 8.85yo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entiHed to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶34

iiD the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery CerUfi cate accordingly.

¶38

C^ommunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. ::il",,^"i:oh^{y" .,:1",.orrected,signed andpronouncedbymein the op"niou.ton} urrs Lfle zD oay or September, 2023) .

¶39

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Syed Nisaruddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Syed Nisaruddin

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri Debobrata Phukon

Yes Bank versus Rahul Boro

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited versus Abhinandan Jain and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Late Sh. Avtar Singh

Paramhans Kumar Puri versus Central Bank of India

Ms Maa Vaishno Trading and others versus Bank of Baroda