Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain

DRT13 Feb 2024OA/349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed for the recovery of outstanding home loans and associated loans totaling over 35 lakhs, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the bank established its claim through evidence. The tribunal ruled in favor of the bank, making the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount along with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.35,47,696/- with future interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and awarded costs.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUAR Y' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.349 ot 2O22

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, L!?Irytul lJ^j ifl i:l:+:^{Amenity H..,,"""..J, centre),} ":i rotj,,',-^,^13k,, ", nyoerabad. Telangana State. xepresented by it; Chief manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

L.^ :r"q^{Nasir Hussain,} Z:,sy:g^{Munawar Hussain,} major,u " ; i I e',"' I-1';#lrl r'; ;ili[."":" Kajendranagar, HyJerabad _ 5OO 086.

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Plot No.67, Adarshne sa nsa reddy ;;i;i;'Jin!;,rZatte-er^abad,

¶10

It4rs. ShaikGulzar Begum, I/:_?I"g^{Nasir Hussiin} , major, t?jrfl f; ; 5j3 i *t j; tJ^j jiil,';,,,,

¶11

Also at;

¶12

I,-o-,lo^{U.1, Adarshnagar,} Za heerabad. sangareddy District _' soz zzi.. """",

¶13

Defendants Counse, for the parti ./id[ -Cr, For the Appiicant r'. Satyanarayana For the Defendants VUay Kumar

¶14

(oA.No.349 of 2022)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,47,696/_ (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Forty Seven thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six only) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.26,59,594/- towards Housing loan limit with future interest @ 11.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs'2,04,040/- towards SBI suraksha Loanwith future interest @ 11.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶19

c) A sum of Rs.6,84,062/- towards SBI Home top up loanwith future interest @ 10olo p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication till the date of realization;

¶20

and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants availed housing loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs, SBI Suraksha Loan of Rs.1,91,000/- and SBI Home top up loan of Rs.6.50 lakhs on 30.011.2015 and 15.09.2017 respectively. The defendants executed memo of loan agreement for home loan e 1't defendant also stood

¶22

as guarantor for ing liability in favour of

¶23

(OA.No.349 of 2022)

¶24

applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 30.05.2022 and issued demand notice dated 01.06.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶25

Ld Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but did not file Written Statement.

¶26

Shri Sandeep^paridala, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶27

examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Ld counsel for defendants filed vakalath but did not file Written ent. To substanl,l

¶32

statem ent' ro t'0tffi"651pf the Applicant Bank, AW.1, orricial of the Aewa;ntffs .;UY and he exhibited relevant documents as 41ry to A.14.*-' In viewJl$the above, I hold that the 13FrE?$24 :

; fn_ ^ .,"

@,,,u*$ir

(OA.No.349 of 2022)

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.

¶37

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

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,47,696/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Forty Seven thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six only) i.e.,

¶39

a) A sum of Rs.26,59,594/- towards Housing loan limit with future interest @ 11.75olo p.afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

b) A sum of Rs.2,04,040/- towards SBI Suraksha Loan with future interest @ lL.75o/o p,afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶41

c) A sum of Rs.6,84,062/- towards SBI Home top up loan with future interest @ 10% p.afrom date of application till realization.

¶42

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

the Applicant Bank is a against the person and properties of de of the debt due. 13 FE8 2m I "o^0S/

¶44

(OA.No.349 of 2022)

¶45

The Applicant Bank is entiued to the costs of the OA.

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thas the 13th day of Feb, 2024)

¶50

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

Tqt .::.,r.\
H "rii.\,^
TRUE COPn
u 1 I t::i trlll * /t // L,
rri !
ll {:(i""..-ll;{,m
Asst. Reslsti;r 15' "
ORr-I, rdYOER.4 F l -
6$n re.S
Sft,,r,,r"4i"j
:s1,

State Bank of India v. Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Syed Nasir 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Modem Ravinder versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt Nagapuri Swathi

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dr. Bodati Lakshmi Narayana

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Ravi Kiran Medical Agencies

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bheemisetty Nikhil Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shrirama Polymers