Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Summayya Fatema Liyaqat

DRT13 Jun 2024OA/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Baroda filed an Original Application for recovery of Rs.25,55,668/- with interest against two joint borrowers for a defaulted home loan. Defendants appeared ex-parte. The tribunal admitted the bank's evidence, held the claim valid and within limitation, and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,55,668/- plus future interest; recovery certificate to be issued against mortgaged properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Summayya Fatema Liyaqat — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 17.01.2023 Registered on : 03.02.2024 Decided on : 13.06.2024 Duration : Ys. Ms. Ds. 01 04 26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.47/2024

¶3

Total Claim Amount : 25,55,668/-

¶4

BANK OF BARODA , a nationalized bank having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujrat & having one of its Branch at Osmanpura, Aurangabad, through the Manager, Sanatan Kumar, Age: 38 Years, Occu.: Service as a Branch Manager, Branch Osmanpura, Aurangabad.

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] Sumayya Fatema Liyaqat , Age.: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-22-28, Kabadipura, Buudi Lane, Nr. Kirana Shop, Dist. Aurangabad (Borrower) And

¶8

Flat No.A-18, on stilt second floor, area admeasuring 818.437 sq.feet in the building known as Radhakrushna Residency in Building No.A constructed on Plot No.54, 55, 56, 57, 60 & 61, total area adm. 13765.7732 sq.mt. part of Gut No.77, situated at village Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶9

2] Shaikh Liyaqat Sk. Ikramulla, R/o. H.No.1-22-28, Kabadipura, Buudi Lane, Nr. Kirana Shop, Dist. Aurangabad (Borrower).

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

CLAIM: Recovery of Rs.25,55,668/-.

APPEARANCES

Page 1 of 5

(OA No.47/2024)

For the Applicant Mr. A.L. Muley – Advocate For Defendant nos. 1 & 2 None (Ex-parte) Shri Vimal Gupta

¶16

Presiding Officer

¶17

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13.06.2024

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

1] The applicant-bank has filed present Original Application against defendants Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of total sum of Rs.25,55,668/with future interest @ 10.7% p.a. from 23.12.2022 till its realization and, in default, for sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶20

2] It is pleaded that defendants are borrowers. After execution of relevant documents in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule – A of the original application by defendants in favour of applicant bank to secure the loan amount and on accepting terms and conditions as to repayment with interest thereon, applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed following loan to the defendants :-

¶21

Particulars	Loan amount	Sanctioned on
1 Home Loan	Rs.25,00,000/-	28.01.2021

¶22

3] The defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed therefore, the loan account classified into NPA on 22.12.2022 and the applicant bank issued legal demand notice to defendants on 28.12.2022 for total outstanding amount of Rs.25,55,668/- with agreed interest, to which the defendants did not pay any response and therefore, the bank has filed the present Original Application for recovery of the amount, as aforesaid.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

(OA No.47/2024)

¶25

4] The defendants are served by way of affixation by the Court Commissioner who has filed report at (Exhibit-9). which is taken on record. Despite service of summons, the defendants did not choose to enter appearance either personally or through their Advocate. It appears that the defendants are not interested in filing the written statement or has nothing to show cause and as such the defendants are hereby set ex-parte.

¶26

5] The applicant bank has filed claim affidavit (Exhibit-04) of Mr. Santan Kumar, along with original documents to corroborate and prove its claim as given in the Original Application thereby adducing in evidence the original documents at Sr.No.AW-1 to AW-13 which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶27

6] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-bank.

¶28

7] In view of this following points arise for my determination and their findings are as under for the reasons stated below :-

¶29

POINTS FINDINGS

¶30

Whether the applicant-bank is entitled In the affirmative. for the claim made in the Original Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶31

What order ? As per final order.

¶32

REASONS

¶33

AS TO POINT NO.1 :-

¶34

8] To prove the claim, the applicant-bank has filed evidence on affidavit. The applicant bank also filed the list of documents (Exh.3) annexing therewith the 13 documents, which are marked as Exh.Nos.A.W.1

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

(OA No.47/2024)

¶37

to A.W.13. The evidence affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., A.W.1 to A.W.13 marked on behalf of the applicant-bank, clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against the defendants. In view of the absence of the defendants, the pleadings of the applicants have gone unchallenged on record.

¶38

9] As to limitation of the Original Application, the defendants have executed the documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 17.02.2021 and deposited title deeds on 19.04.2021 with the applicant bank and the Original Application filed on 17.01.2023. Hence, it clearly shows that Original Application is filed well within the prescribed period limitation.

¶39

10] In view of above, it is clear that the applicant-bank is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Hence, I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant-bank the claim amount, as shown in the Original Application. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative.

¶40

AS TO POINT NO.2 :-

¶41

11] In view of the observations made hereinabove, the Original Application filed by the applicants deserves to be granted, I have to grant reasonable interest from the date of filing of the OA till realization Hence, I Pass the following orders :-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

A. Original Application No. 47/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶44

B. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant-bank a sum of Rs.25,55,668/- (Rupees Twentyfive Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Six-Hundred Sixty-Eight only) with future interest @ 10 % p.a. simple from the date of order

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

(OA No.47/2024)

¶47

till its realization.

¶48

C. Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Original Application shall be deducted from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶49

D. The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged/hypothecated properties, as described in the Schedule-A of the Original Application i.e.

¶50

A] All the piece and parcel of Agricultural Landed property bearing Flat no. A-18, on stilt second floor, are adm 818.437 sq, feet in the building known as Radhakrushna Residency, in Building no. A, constructed on plot no. 54,55,56,57,60 & 61 total area adm. 13765.7732 sq. mtrs part of Gut no. 77, situated at Village Satara Tq. & Dist Aurangabad in the name of Defendant No. 1 i.e. Summaiyya Fatema Liyaqat is bounded as under Towards East: - Flat no. B-17. Towards West: Flat no. A-17 Towards South: Flat no. A-15 Towards North: - Open Space.

¶51

E. Issue recovery certificate accordingly against defendants.

¶52

F. The Registrar is directed to send the copy of judgment and recovery certificate to the applicant-bank and the defendants.

¶53

G. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site.

¶54

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶55

Page 5 of 5

¶56

(OA No.47/2024)

Bank of Baroda v. Summayya Fatema Liyaqat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Summayya Fatema Liyaqat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramchandra Marotirao Hendre (Deceased)

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shailesh Krishi Seva Kendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Krishna Babanrao Pere

Bank of Baroda versus Jyotideep and Sons Logistics

Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue versus Union Bank of India

Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar versus Bank of Maharashtra