Allowed

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

DRT8 Dec 2023OA/91/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the bank for recovery of Rs. 5.67 crores along with interest and costs from the borrower and guarantors, holding that the bank established its claim by examining documents. The order proceeded against mortgaged and other assets for realization.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants were declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,67,49,190.19 with interest at 14.85% p.a. from 01.03.2022; recovery certificate issued.

Ms Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Arcil) versus… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.91 ol 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Pathargatti Branch, 22-7-269/L, 1't floor, Noor Mahal Complex, DewanDevdi, Pathargatti, Hyderabad -500002. Represented by its Senior Manager Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. MaqdoomMoghny Enterprises^pvt Ltd, H.No.22-7 - 176, Maqdoom Building, Pathargatti , Charminar road, Hyderabad - 500 002.

¶9

Also at: Regd office, H.No.1B-2-479, Maqdoom villa, Falaknumalangammet, Hyderabad - 500 053.

¶10

Mr. MaqdoomMohiuddin, S/o Mr. HidayathMohiuddin, Aged major, H.No.18-2-479, Maqdoom villa, Falaknuma Jangammet, Hyderabad - 500 053.

¶11

Mr. ShafiaMaqdoomMohiunddin, w/o MaqdoomMohiuddin, aged major, H.No. 1B-2-479, Maqdoom villa, Fa la kn u mala nga m met, Hyderabad - 500 053.

¶12

lYr. MoghnyMaqdoomMohiuddin, s/o Mr. MaqdoomMohiuddin, aged major, H.No.18-2-479,

¶13

0 0 0tC Znn

¶14

(OA.No.91 of 2022)

¶15

Maqdoom villa, Falaknumalangammet, Hyderabad - 500 053.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju For the Defendants 1 & 2 Sri B. Srinivas Reddy Defendants 3 & 4 Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.S,67,49,l9o.1gps (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Seven lakhs Forty Nine thousand One hundred Ninety and paise Eighteen only) with interest @ 14.85o/o p.a with monthly rests from 01.03.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedules "A to D" to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a company/ borrower and defendants no.2 to 4 are guarantors and mortgagors availed cash credit limit of Rs.4.00 crores vide letter dated 17.05.2013. The defendant no.1 executed letter of hypothecation, hypothecation of book debts and demand promissory note dated 23.05.2013. The defendApts 2 to 4 executed guarantee agreement dated 23.05.2013,for a snfi1pf Rs.4.00 crores. r,i The defendants 2 to 4 creat g€ d n -riortgaqeslgrtgagqs^.iruver s Cheduihedu le mentioned li.-'1 "r::l \i,' 1.,1 ' ,' i .i., /: : - :, ,'., i,,,,.,, .s'1:.-,,i..,..!"_4!r'

¶22

(OA.No.91 of 2022)

¶23

properties as detailed in schedule "A to D,,. Defendant no.2 0riginally created the mortgage in respect of schedule A property by depositing original sale deed dated 31.03.2001, document No.37612001 with an intention to create as security for the roan amount. Subsequenuy the limit was enhanced to Rs.50.00 Iakhs and executed regddocument no.643/2009. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 29.03.2021 and issued demand notice dated 27.O5.2O2L Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Counsel for Defendants No.1 &2 filedvakalathbut not filed Written statement. Defendants no.3 & 4 called absent and set exparte on 09.tr.2022.

¶25

4' Shri V. Sudarshan, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserF as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.25.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Bank.

¶27

(OA.No.91 of 2022)

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Though counsel for Defendants No.1 & 2 filed vakalath but failed to file written statement. Defendants 3 & 4 set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.25. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,67,49,190.19ps (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Seven lakhs Forty Nine thousand One hundred Ninety and paise Eighteen only) with interest @ t4.g5o/o p.afrom 01.03.2022ti11 realization.

¶33

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in the schedule '.A to D,, to OA towards :t:-.

¶34

realization of the de.bt due.

¶35

I,I
-'.
--,1
4'
...

¶36

(oA.No.91 of 2022)

¶37

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization oF the debt due.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed byarer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the gth day of Dec.,

¶43

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

fitl
U,-
r)
_ _^, ,/>..

¶45

'(f'f?y: f^- ) t ,lr.gt<-YtA ^^_t " " t. n, o, L, t-: t -l, Hy::r:naBAD",^{{69- lD -'}

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

State Bank of India versus Syed Muzaffer Hussain

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

J R Traders versus State Bank of India

M S Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited