Allowed

South Indian Bank v. Najah Marble gallery

DRT11 Jul 2024OA/615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal allowed an original application by South Indian Bank to issue a Recovery Certificate after borrowers defaulted on a Lok Adalath settlement of Rs. 62,00,000/-. The court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 74,21,175.60 with interest and authorized the sale of hypothecated properties for realization.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA directing defendants to pay Rs.74,21,175.60 with interest and direct the sale of hypothecated/immovable properties for recovery of dues.

South Indian Bank versus Najah Marble gallery — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 11^th DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA No.615/2023

¶6

Between

¶7

South Indian Bank Limited, Cherkala Branch, Kasargode District. Represented by its Manager and Branch Head

¶8

----Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

M/s. Najah Marble Gallery, A Partnership firm represented by its partners, BGP – 19/397-A, Kinfra Road P.O., Seethangoli, Kasargod – 671 321

¶11

Shafi C. A., Partner of M/s. Najah Marble Gallery, Maara House, Fourth Mile, Chengala P.O., Kasargod – 671 541

¶12

OA 615/2023

¶13

Rassiyabi C. A., Partner of M/s. Najah Marble Gallery, W/o. Abdul Rahiman, AR Villa, Nusrath Nagar, Bovikkanam, Muliyar, Kasargod – 671 542

¶14

Raihanath Beevi, W/o. Shafi C. A., Mara House, Fourth Mile, Chengala P.O., Kasargod – 671 541

¶15

----Defendants

¶16

This Original application coming on 28.06.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Keerthi Sujesh, Advocate for the Applicant bank and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for the Applicant bank and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The applicant bank has filed the instant memo ID No.7477/2024 dated 14.05.2024 seeking to issue Recovery Certificate pursuant to the Lok Adalath award.

¶19

The applicant bank has filed a default memo stating inter alia that the defendants have defaulted in payment of the amount as per the award of the Lok Adalath held on 20.01.2024. The OA was settled in Lok Adalath held at DRT-1 on 20.01.2024 and as per the terms of compromise, the defendants were obliged to remit a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- to the applicant bank. It was agreed that in the event of default of payment, the defendants would have no objection to the issuance of Recovery Certificate for the entire amount claimed in the OA with interest and costs less such payments effected after the passing of the award. It is stated that the defendants failed to remit the amount of Rs.62,00,000/- as per the said award and hence it is prayed to issue a Recovery Certificate as claimed in the OA.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

OA 615/2023

¶22

On perusal of the award, it could be seen that the defendants had to pay an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- to the applicant bank on or before 31.03.2024. In the event of failure to pay the amount, the defendants shall forfeit the benefits of the compromise and the bank will be entitled to recover the entire amount as claimed in the OA by sale of the mortgaged property shown in the OA and that the defendants will have no objection for issuance of a Recovery Certificate on filing a Memo/Petition by the applicant bank before the Tribunal intimating the default.

¶23

According to the applicant bank, the defendants have failed to pay the settled amount as per the award dated 20.01.2024 and, therefore, the Recovery Certificate as claimed in the OA may be issued.

¶24

In the result, the Original Application is allowed directing defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.74,21,175.60 (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five and Paise Sixty only) due under CCOL account No.0671083000000016 with interest on the sum of Rs.71,95,029.49 (Rupees Seventy One Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Twenty Nine and Paise Forty Nine only) @13.45% per annum from 12.06.2023 till the date of realisation.

¶25

On failure to pay the above said debts to the Applicant Bank, the Applicant Bank is directed to bring the hypothecated and immovable property, described in the OA schedule ‘A & B’, for sale to realize its dues and its proportionate costs.

¶26

The Registry is directed to prepare DRC in terms of this final order. The Applicant Bank shall file memo of costs within 10 days from the date of this order. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order to both parties as provided in Rule 16 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, as amended in 2003.

¶27

Typed by PS, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11^th day of July, 2024.

¶28

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

OA 615/2023

¶31

A SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶32

Hypothecation of the entire current assets of M/s. Najah Marble Gallery including Stocks and Book Debts

¶33

B SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶34

District	: Kasargode
Sub District	: Kasargode
Taluk	: Kasargode
Village	: Chengala
Sy. No.	: 59/1B1A
Extent	: 4.45 Ares

¶35

Description

¶36

All parts and parcel of property having an extent of 4.45 Ares in Sy. No.59/1B1A of Chengala Village, Kasargode Taluk, Kasargode District with the building standing therein having a super built up area of 2600 sq.ft. bearing Door No.XIX/383A, together with all structures, trees, fittings and fixtures, rights and all other improvements thereon covered by Partition Deed No.3233/2008 of Kasargode SRO.

¶37

Boundaries (as per title deeds)

¶38

South	:	Private Road
East	:	Property of Badruddin
West	:	Property of Nasir S. M.
North	:	Property in Re. Sy. No.44/10

¶39

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

Page 4 of 4

South Indian Bank v. Najah Marble gallery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Indian Bank v. Najah Marble gallery

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

Similar cases

Avtar Plastic versus Bank of India

Mayurkumar J Gohel and Ors. versus Hero Finance Corp Ltd.

Mr Rajesh K Lodhia versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S J. G. Enterprises

Smt Renu Singh versus Union Bank of India

Mr Arun Kumar M versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited