Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Shaik Masood Ali

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/863/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed under the RDDBFI Act for recovery of a home loan default. In the absence of the defendants' appearance, the tribunal unchallenged the bank's claim and ordered joint recovery of the outstanding amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,32,88,309 plus future interest at 24% p.a. Liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Shaik Masood Ali — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of March 2024

¶3

Present: SMT. S. V. GOWRAMMA Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

OA NO.863/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited., Mytree Centre, No.4/10, Hosur Road, Bommannahalli, Bangalore- 560 068. Rep. by its officer and Power of Attorney Mr. Premjith.R

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND

¶9

Mr. Shaik Masood Ali S/o Shaib Mohammed Ali 19-2-395/A/l 1 Misrigunj water, Reservoir Bahaduspura Hyderabad – 5600064

¶10

Mr. Shaik Maqsood Ali S/o Shaib Mohammed Ali 19-2-395/A/l 1 Misrigunj water, Reservoir Bahaduspura, Hyderabad – 5600064. … DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Anvaya Law

¶13

Defendants Nos.1 & 2 : Ex-parte.

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application (OA) is filed on 18-11-2021, under

¶16

section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions

¶17

¶18

OA No.863/2022

¶19

Act 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,88,309/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Nine Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing till realization from defendants.

¶20

The Application filed is within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and the subject recovery claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case:

¶22

The Defendants No. 1 is the Borrower, and the Defendant No. 2 being a Co-Borrower had approached the Applicant Bank for Home Loan to purchase the Apartment bearing No.8 on Ground Floor in A Block measuring 2020 Sq.ft of super built up area together with proportionate 282.2 Sq.ft of undivided share, right, title and interest in the land exclusively identified with the aforesaid block there in the Group Housing Enclave known as PLATINUM CITY which is referred to Schedule Property. The Applicant Bank had decided to sanction loan amount of Rs. 1,19,01,057/- ( Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Fifty Seven Only) as per sanction letter dated 21/06/2019.

¶23

The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had executed Facility Agreement dated 30/07/2019 and other financial documents in favour of the Applicant Bank and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions. M/s.Platinum City (hereinafter referred to as Builder) had executed a Deed of Sale dated 08.08.2019 in respect

¶24

¶25

OA No.863/2022

¶26

of Schedule B Property to the Defendant No. 1. The Builder had issued a letter dated 29.07.2019 addressed to the Applicant, confirming that it has agreed to sell the Schedule B Property to the Defendant No.1 and also the Builder herein had confirmed that, it has No Objection for the Applicant Bank to provide housing loan to the Defendant No.1 in connection with the purchase of Schedule B Property to the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The Applicant Bank had initially decided to sanction loan amount of Rs.1,19,01,057/- (Rupees One Crore Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Fifty Seven Only) as per sanction order dated 21.06.2019. The Applicant Bank had vided its disbursal request form had agreed to transfer Rs.1,15,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Only) in favour of the Builder, Bank A/c No.1182000100024901 maintained with Karnataka Bank and Rs.1,32,307/(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred Seven Only) towards ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd and Rs. 2,68,750 (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) insurance vide ICICI Lombard Ltd.

¶28

The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had defaulted in repayment of the loan amount regularly and were very irregular in payments of the EMI. The Applicant bank had issued Loan Recall Notice dated 22^nd February 2021 to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 1,28,96,126/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand One hundred and Twenty Six Only). Despite having received the said notice, the Defendants had not come forward to pay the outstanding due amount. The Defendants subsequently as on 10^th June 2021 are now due and payable a total sum of Rs. 1,32,88,309/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty

¶29

¶30

OA No.863/2022

¶31

Two Thousand Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Nine Only) which is inclusive of interest under the aforesaid loan account as on 10.06.2021. The date of last irregular payment dated 05/01/2020.

¶32

After the filing of the OA, summons was sent to the Defendants No.1 & 2 by RPAD and the applicant bank filed a memo on 06.03.2023, postal cover was returned with Shara “Insufficient Address”. Hence, summons through substitute service was taken and the Applicant Bank published the summons to the Defendants in two daily leading newspapers kannada daily Newspaper “Kannada Prabha ’’ and English Daily ‘’The New Indian Express” on 25.05.2023. When OA was taken up on 27.09.2023, even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants, hence, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 was placed ex-parte on 27.09.2023.

¶33

Heard the submissions of Counsels and perused the records.

¶34

To prove the case, Sri. Premjith.R, Officer and Power of Attorney Holder, of the Applicant Bank, has filed Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked as Ex.A1, and documents came to be marked as Ex.A3 to A12. As the defendants remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶35

Having regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, documents executed, the conduct and operations in the loan account and

¶36

¶37

OA No.863/2022

¶38

the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled to a final order on the following terms:-

¶39

: O R D E R:

¶40

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶41

(a) The Applicant bank is allowed to recover from Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,88,309/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Nine Only) as on 10.06.2021 together with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. rests from the date of the filing of the OA till the date of realization.

¶42

(b) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to recover the amount by sale of the schedule mentioned properties in the OA;

¶43

¶44

d) If the sale proceeds of the schedule mentioned properties are not sufficient to satisfy the dues as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the defendants (both movables and immovables) to recover the balance dues as required under law;

¶45

(e) The Applicant Bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the defendants duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the

¶46

¶47

OA No.863/2022

¶48

defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets etc., during the intervening period after the filing of the OA, enabling the Registry to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by defendants to the applicant bank.

¶49

(f) The Applicant Bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

¶50

(g) Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

¶51

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶52

[Dictated to the (GS), transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on this the 18^th day March 2024].

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, BENGALURU

¶55

ANNEXURES

¶56

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶57

AW-1: Sri.Pramodh Gurumallappa S/o. Sri. Gurumallappa, Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶58

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶59

Sl No.	Particulars	Exhibits
1.	Copy of Power of Attorney	A3
2.	Loan Application & Sanction Letter dated 21.06.2019	A4 & A5

¶60

¶61

OA No.863/2022

¶62

3.	Facility Agreement dated 30.07.2019	A6
4.	Copy of Sale Deed dated 08.08.2019	A7
5.	Copy of Letter dated 29.07.2019	A8
6.	Copy of the Disbursal request form	A9
7.	Copy of the Loan Recall Notice dated 22.02.2021 issued to Defendants No.1 & 2	A10
8.	Copy of the foreclosure letter dated 10.06.2021 issued to the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 and statement of Accounts.	A11 & A12

¶63

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶64

-Nil –

¶65

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶66

-Nil –

¶67

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY

¶68

All the piece and parcel of immovable property being the residentially converted land now bearing B. M. P Khata No. 2 HMT Main Road Ward No.1, Yashwanthapura, Bangalore - 560022 comprised earlier in survey number 47 & 48 measuring 28 Acres 3 Guntas and 6 Acres 24 Guntas respectively in peenya Village, Yeshwantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore) totally measuring 34 acres 27 guntas in extent or 1,40,443. 75 Sq. mtrs bounded on East by : Public Road leading from tumkur road to research and development division H.M.T Ltd. West by: Private Houses in Peenya Village as well as Industrial Area of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. North By: Pipe Line Road dividing this Schedule Property from the factory premises of Bharat Fritz werner Ltd, Located in Sy No.49 and South by : Premises of Indian Plywood Research Institute as well as some private houses in Peenya Village.

¶69

¶70

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY

¶71

All that piece and parcel of Schedule A property the area earmarked for park, open spaces, civic amenities, internal roads and path ways, club houses, the details of such area mentioned as hereunder; Total area of Schedule A property - 140443.75 Sq.Mtrs Area to be executed from above park, open spaces —

¶72

21056.36 Sq. Mtrs, Civic amenities - 14143.71 Sq. Mtrs, Internal roads and path ways - 35200.07 Sq. Mtrs, Club House - 1173.0 Sq.Mtrs.

¶73

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY

¶74

Residential flat constructed over a portion of Schedule A property bearing

¶75

No.8 on Ground Floor in A Block measuring 2020 Sq.ft of super built up area together with proportionate 282.2 Sq.ft of undivided share, right, title and interest in the land exclusively identified with the aforesaid block there in the Group Housing Enclave known as PLATINUM CITY. The residential apartment is constructed with RCC Roof, cement plastered, hollow block walls, mosaic/vitrified flooring, plywood doors and aluminum windows.

¶76

Sd/PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, BENGALURU

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Shaik Masood Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sri. Shaik Masood Ali

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi

The Federal Bank Limited versus Sri. Johney @ John Chacko

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Venkappa Bhimappa Lamani (Since deceased by his legal Representatives)

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Om Anand Enterprises

Atma Ram versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Narinder Singh versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited