Allowed

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Abdul Gafoor

DRT13 Aug 2024OA/889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by The South Indian Bank Ltd for recovery of Rs. 56,13,947.43 plus interest from two defendants who remained ex-parte. The order holds defendants jointly and severally liable and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 56,13,947.43 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant assets; costs awarded; Recovery Certificate to b

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Abdul Gafoor — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (HonS,), M.A. PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 889 OF 2022

¶4

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Ibrahimpatnam Branch, Plot No.54, Manchal Road, Ibrahimpatnam(V & M), Ranga Reddy District - 500506. Rep. by its Manager and GPA Holder.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr.Abdul Gafoor, H. No.7-95, Manchal Road, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dist, Telangana - 501506.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

N.K.House, Kavumpadi, Thillenkeri, Kannur, Kerala - 670702.

¶10

Mrs. Hajira Kottara Chalie, H. No.7-95, Manchal Road, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dist. Telangana - 501506.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

N. K. House, Kavumpadi, Thillenkeri, Kannur, Kerala - 670702. ...Defendants fr-^ -z /./ -6,"

¶13

oA,NO.889/2022

¶14

Cou nsel for the Applicant

:lvl/s.M.Sunil Kumar

Defenda nts

: Exparte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.56,13,947.43ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @ 10.30o/o p.a. and penal interest @^{2& p.a. from the} date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶20

Summons served on D1 through paper publication, whereas summons served On D2. They were set ex-parte on 17.06.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Sreehari Puram, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 25 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.25.

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for conslderation is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents

¶26

,a1w*t^,. -:!t-A

¶27

/ /A -..'^.1b I

oA.NO.889/2022

viz., Exs.A.1 to A.25 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank wlth future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.889/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.56,13,947.43ps with future interest @10.30o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgaged property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost 14emo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶38

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

oA.NO.889/2022

¶40

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court on thls the 13th Day of Au8ust, 2024).

¶42

/4K*', KnursnwaR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Abdul Gafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Abdul Gafoor

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

State Bank of India versus Varkey

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) versus Sh. Niranjan Singh

Canara Bank versus Smt. Geeta Arya

Shri Gopal So Kashiprasad Borale versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Hari Om Industries

Canara Bank versus Dr P M, Lakshmi Prasad