Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sk Abdul Malek

DRT1 Feb 2024OA/192/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's recovery application against five defendants, declaring them jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3.30 crore plus interest, secured by hypothecation and mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,30,41,206.00 with interest @ 18% p.a.; recovery certificate issued under Section 19(22) RDB Act, 1993.

State Bank of India versus Sk Abdul Malek — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I KOLKATA

¶2

PRESENT: -SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

O.A. No. 192 of 2022

¶4

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER : 1^st February 2024

¶5

State Bank of India , a banking institution and a body corporate constituted, incorporated and formed by and under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and carrying on their banking business interalia amongst others at their SME, Howrah 9, G.T.Road, Howrah (South), Howrah – 711101, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, represented by Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, South Bengal, commonly known as “SARB, South Bengal”, “Jeevandeep Building 1, Middleton Street, 2^nd Floor, Kolkata – 700071, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.

¶6

..............APPLICANT

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Sk. Abdul Malek, son of Late Sk. Baharuddin, carrying on business as Partner under the name and style of M/s. M.B. Agro-Vet Firm from Village Ranichak, P.O. Amrakuchi, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal – 721150, P.S. Kotwali.

¶9

Sk. Abdul Salam, son of Late Sk. Baharuddin, carrying on business as Partner under the name and style of M/s. M.B. Agro-Vet Firm from Village Ranichak, P.O. Amrakuchi, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal – 721150, P.S. Kotwali.

¶10

3.Sk. Abdul Kalam, son of Late Sk. Baharuddin, carrying on business as Partner under the name and style of M/s. M.B. Agro-Vet Firm from Village Ranichak, P.O. Amrakuchi, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal – 721150, P.S. Kotwali.

¶11

Sk. Abdul Alam, son of Late Sk. Baharuddin, carrying on business as Partner under the name and style of M/s. M.B. Agro-Vet Firm from Village Ranichak, P.O. Amrakuchi, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal – 721150, P.S. Kotwali.

¶12

Smt. Lutfa Khatun, wife of Sk. Abdul Malek, carrying on business as Partner under the name and style of M/s. M.B. Agro-Vet Firm from Village Ranichak, P.O. Amrakuchi, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal – 721150, P.S. Kotwali.

¶13

................DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. Anirban Pramanick,

Ms. Ahana Rakshit.

Counsel for the Defendants : None appears.

¶19

Set ex-parte on 7.12.2023

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The present Recovery Application is filed by the State Bank of India, nationalized Bank carrying on business of Banking all over India including from its Branch Office at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, South Bengal, commonly known as “SARB, South Bengal”, “Jeevandeep Building 1, Middleton Street, 2^nd Floor, Kolkata – 700071, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, for recovery of Rs.3,30,41,206.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 18.03.2022 against the Defendants till payment and/or realization. The Defendants are the borrower/guarantor/mortgager.

¶22

The service of summons was effected upon the Defendants in usual mode of postal service. The Defendants neither appeared nor filed the Written Statement to controvert the claim of the Bank. Hence, the defendants are declared exparte on 7.12.2023.

¶23

The Applicant in support of its contention filed Evidence on Affidavit duly affirmed by Ms. Urmi Sen, Manager ,CCO of the Bank annexing the various documents which are exhibited.

¶24

I have perused the documents and Evidence and heard the Ld. Advocate for the Bank. By the said evidence on affidavit the Applicant could prove its claim and documents. The claim of the Bank is within the limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, the claim of the Bank should be allowed with cost. In the above circumstances it is ordered :

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

i) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. ii) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,30,41,206.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 18.03.2022 against the Defendants till payment or realization.

¶27

iii) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in the Schedule of immoveable property as described in the Schedule of the Mortgaged Property in

¶28

¶29

¶30

the OA at page 34 & 35 .

¶31

iv) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.

¶32

v) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law.

¶33

vi) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶34

vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 15/03/2024 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶35

Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No. 192 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, filed in connection with this OA, are also disposed of.

¶36

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶37

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶38

(Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 1^st February 2024)

¶39

Place : Kolkata ( Ambuja Mohan Das ) Date : 1^st February 2024 Presiding Officer

¶40

Page No.- Order Sheet (continuation)

¶41

¶42

¶43

Case No. O Date of the order	A 192/2022 State Bank of India –vs- Sk. Abdul Malek &Ors. Order with signature O ffic e ac tion with date and dated s ignature of parties when nec es s ary
1^st February 2024	Ld. Advocate Mr. Anirban Pramanick, alongwith Ms. Ahana Rakshit appeared for the Applicant Bank. None is present on behalf of the Defendants. Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 07.12.2023. The detailed order in three pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows: O R D E R
	i) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost.
	ii) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,30,41,206.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rest from 18.03.2022 against the Defendants till payment or realization.
	iii) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in the Schedule of immoveable property as described in the Schedule of the Mortgaged Property in the OA at page 34 & 35. iv) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.
	v) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law. vi) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
	vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 15/03/2024 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.
	Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No. 192 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, filed in connection with this OA, are also disposed of. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day1^stFebruary 2024)
	Place : Kolkata (Ambuja Mohan Das) Date : 1^stFebruary 2024 Presiding Officer

¶44

¶45

State Bank of India v. Sk Abdul Malek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sk Abdul Malek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Shah Mohd. Mumtaz

Axis Bank Limited (E-Uti Bank Ltd) versus Satbeer Sehrawat

Icici Bank Limited versus Prince Construction Co.

Ms Shree Mahalaxmi Traders versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Ms S and S Pharma and Food Distributors versus Canara Bank

Manjit Kaur versus Jana Small Finance Bank