Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam

DRT28 Oct 2024OA/226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the creditor-applicant's original application for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.55,13,366.40 along with future interest. Defendants were found jointly and severally liable to pay the sum and face proceedings against hypothecated properties, having failed to substantiate their denials.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.55,13,366.40 with future interest; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated properties and persons of respondents.

Bank of India versus M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.226 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Basheerbagh branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its constituted attorney

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s.BahujanRythuMitrasangam, Sy.no.22, Kalbemal village, Nyalkalmandal, Zaheerabad, Medak district - 502 256.

¶10

Sri Syed Mohammad Abdul Samad, s/o Syed Mohammed Abdul Qadeer, aged about 39 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶11

Sri Syed Mohammad Abdul Qadeer, s/o Syed Abdul Hafeez, aged about 68 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶12

Sri Syed Mohammad Abdul Baseer, S/o Syed Mohammed Abdul Qadeer Aged about 37 years, occ: bu'siness'/.,4'n#u^':-r-i.). flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, ;i,.'& 'HP^'ifu.i, H.No.5-9-59/1B, deccan towers,.,/7'F (} 'di Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 28sfiM

¶13

Mr. Ahmed Sallauddin Yusuf Za Aged major, occ: business,

¶14

(OA.No.226 of 2022)

¶15

H. No.9- 1 1-39 / 5, Khazigatti, Golconda, Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶16

Syed Mohammad Abdul Malik, s/o Syed Mohammed Abdul eadeer, aged about 42 years, occ: business, flat no.302, Moghul Apartments, H.No.5-9-59/18, deccan towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Parties:

¶19

For the Applicant

¶20

For the Defendants No.2 to 4 & 6

¶21

M/s. Momin Mohammed Rafiq

¶22

Sri M.A. Shakeel

¶23

Defendants No.1 and 5

¶24

Expa rte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.55,13,366.40ps (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three hundred Sixty Six and paiseforty only) i.e.,

¶27

a)A sum of Rs.43,19,606.17ps against defendants No.1 to 6in respect of term loan with future interest @ 9.65% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ additional 2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶28

b)A sum of Rs.7,64,104.55ps from defendants No.1 to 6 in respect of GECL account with o/o p.a with monthly rests atons *itn p"n1ffi;,"&"^;.: date of filing of OA till the date of reatiz;itid-n; 2 0 gCT Z[f ] lr4. ,'-i,r{ -P-$, SmS-P

¶29

(OA.No.226 of 2022)

¶30

c) A sum of Rs.1,64,032.99 ps from defendants No.1 to 6 in respect of working capital term loan account with future interest @ 7.75o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2o/o g.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶31

d) A sum of Rs.2,65,622.69ps from defendants No.1 to 6 in respect of GECL account with future interest @ 7.75o/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶32

and in default for sale of hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 is a Society represented by defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 4 to 6 are the members of the society availed term loan of Rs.58,40,000/- for running business on 23.05.2018. To secure the due repayment of above loan, the defendants executed demand promissory note, letter of installment, letter of declaration, MCLR agreement, agreement and hypothecation cum loan agreement all dated 15.06.2018. The defendant No.1 represented by defendants No.2 & 3 further availed GECL term loan of Rs.8,90,000/- and executed demand promissory note, letter of instalment, letter of agreement and hypothecation cum loan agreement. \ ndants availed term loan of Rs.1,61,642.31ps ind uS\necessa ry docu ments. ' *\l ?IocTrfr,l

¶34

(oA.No.225 of 2022)

¶35

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued legal notice dated 14.02.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.55,13,366.4ops (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three hundred Sixty Six and paiseforty only) with future interest @ 9.650lo p.a, @ 8.40o/o and @ 7.75o/o p.arespectively with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶36

Defendants 1 and 5 remained exparte. The Defendants No.2,3,4 and 6 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that due to covid 19 pandemic, faced hardships and the business was running low and during that troubles the Applicant bank declared the account as NPA. It is also contended that inspite of suffering losses, the defendants paid the loan installments regularly. It is further submitted that the Applicant bank charged rate of interest exorbitantly which is against the RBI guidelines. Hence

¶37

prayed for dism

¶38

3, filed evidence affidavit CreditManager as AW.1 and

¶39

(OA.No.226 of 2022)

¶40

through her marked 36 documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.36. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence AFfidavit was closed on 25.04.2024.

¶41

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶42

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶43

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶44

ii) To what relief ?

¶45

Point No.i):

¶46

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The d !^{placed any material} {r.

¶47

documents to show thqir^. Sonafid :"N,:;;;; ;,,"; pac, *

¶48

substantial amounts to:tni apfli&,|[I 7021 ,.", .1i

¶49

(OA.No.226 of 2022)

¶50

AW.1 is not cross examined by the^{counselfor defendants.} The defendants have not come forward to^{give evidenceto} substantiate that their liability^{is less than the amountmentionedin} the OA and no supporting^{documents filed for establishingthat they} have not hypothecated the^{movable properties. Under such} circumstances, the evidence of^{AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1to} A,36 stood unchallenged^and unrebutted.^{The Applicant bank clearly} established that the^{defendantsareliable to pay the OA amountto} the Applicant bank.

¶51

Point No.ii)

¶52

In the result, the^{present originalapplication is allowed with costsas} u nder:

¶53

The Defendants are^{jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant} Bank a total sum of^{Rs.55,13,366'40ps(RupeesFifty Five Lakhs} Thirteen Thousand^{Three hundred sixty six and paiseforty} only) i.e.,

¶54

a) A sum of^{Rs.43,19,606.17psagainst defendants No'1 to 6 in} respect of term^{loan with future interest @ 9'650/o p'a from} date of filing of^{OA till the date of realization;}

¶55

ps from defendants No.1 to 6ⁱⁿ

¶56

b) A sum of^Rs. future interest @^8.40olo P.a te of realization;

¶57

¶58

(oA.No.225 of 2022)

¶59

c) A sum of Rs.1,64,032.99 ps from defendants No.1 to 6 in respect of working capital term loan account with future interest @ 7.75o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶60

d) A sum of Rs.2,65,622.69ps from defendants^{No.1 to 6 in} respect of GECL account with future interest @⁷ '75o/o^p'a from date of filing of OA till the date of^realization;

¶61

B. The applicant bank is entitled to^{proceedagainstthe} hypothecatedproperties as described^{in schedule to OA towards} realization of the debt due.

¶62

The Applicant Bank is also^{entitledto proceedagainst the person} and^properties of defendants^{No.2 to 6 and propertiesof defendant} no.1 firm towards^{realization of the debt due.}

¶63

The Applicant^{Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA'}

¶64

The Applicant shall^{file a cost memowithin two weeksfrom the date} of receiPt of order.

¶65

t2. Issue Recovery^{certificate accordingly'}

¶66

icate a copy of the order^{to the parties concerned.}

¶67

by her, corrected, signed^{and pronounced by mein the open} of Oct'2024)

¶68

sdl_

¶69

¶70

(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
c.itr#
l$L Reolslrar
jfr4, umtnaaaa'

Bank of India v. M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Rama Plastics

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vistan Next Gen Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Kailas Sulochana versus State Bank of India

Narsing Rao Mekala versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Muluguri Anandam

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kisan Enterprises