Bank of India v. Syed Masoom
Case brief
What is this about?
Applicant Bank filed an original application to recover dues from defendants. Tribunal held bank proved loan documents and liability. Granted recovery certificate with reduced interest.
What did the court decide?
Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.44,09,669.59/-; Defendants restricted from dealing with property; Bank entitled to sell hypothecated assets and recover dues.
What the court decided
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIB rAL AT LUCMW resent: Pravas Kumar Singh, 'residing Officdr Case No. Original Application +o.1182 of 202 Dated: 22.8.202 Bang of India, having Branch at 31,Khun Khur{ji Road, Chowk, Lucknow-22600 pbII„„t B,nkB,nk Versus Syed] Masoom Raza Rizvi, S/o Mr. Syed Moo£i Raza Rizvi, R/o 450/138, A, Mufti Ganjl Near St. Josephs School, cbowk, Lucknow-226003 2 M/s Priyadarshini Craft, (Throu! its Prop+ietor Mr. Syed Masoom Raza IZVI) R/o l38A, Shop No.13, Near Masjid Emli Hardoi Road Thakur Ganj . Lucknow 226d03 D4fdndants Ld. Cou4sel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Sabjeev Singh, AdIvI Ld. Courisel for the defendants: Mr. Rajneqsh Yadav, Adv+' le 1 Thi, P,iginal Application has been filed by the applic+tIBank under Section 19 &f the Recovery of Debts & Bank ,pt,y A,t, 19#31 ,g,in,t th, Four Lac defendants For the recovery of Rs.44,09,669. .91 - (Rupees F+: Id Paisa Fi Nine Thou£and, Six Hundred Sixty Nine Fine Only) (Rs.12,29,591.46/in Vehicle Loan Accoun1 (Rs.3 1,06,27: ;3/- in Cash Credit Load Account) & (Rs.73,896/- in Tet L,,n A„,unt} tbg,th„ with pendent-tit4 and future interest, costs and othe+ reli
pbII„„t B,nkB,nk
2
oIA. No.1182 of 2024
2 e 1r h e b r i e f fa c t s o f c a s e : 1r h e d e fe n d &tn o B 1 is prop jie [ or o fM/ Sa P,iy,d„,hi+i c„a/defendant no.2. The def4ndant no.1 on lb+half of the d,f,„d,nt no.2/n,m ,ide loa„ appli„ti,n dat bd 06.02.2023 4p+roached the ,ppli„„t-bank f„ g„nt ,f V,hi,1, F„ility I,f R,.14 1„,d,iFh w„ duly considered and sanctioned by the appncan+bank vide its Is&ction letter dated 07.02.2023on certain terms and condkLns (Exhibit NJ.1-2& Exhibit No. A-3) toFthis original application.
3 . The defendants had purchased Kia Jseltos be,ring R,gi,t„ti,„ No.UP32 NK 7408 register,d with th, T,anJport D,p,nme,it tHa, P,ad„h (As per thib „igi„,1 ,ppli,,ti,n). 4. In +rderto s„u„ th, ,f„„,idVehi,{, loan f„ility +fIR,.14 la,,th, defendantdo.1 ,„ b,h,if ,f the d,f,nd,nt „d.2/H„,a,d ex,&tbd ,nd ,ig„,d various #ecurity document, i.f,,,u, I ,f th, ,pp]i,hnt-b,nk .. 0 7 + 0 2 + 2 0 2 $ 1 i k e ]:) e ][1[F]1 an d P r o 111 i s s oryN oje ) Agreement of charge & ][][ y P o t h e c ?t i o n o f b o o k ) d e b t s ) ]D} e c 1 aradon i IN sped of no elation ship with any bank ! officers, Multipurpose documentb, Agreement of Hypothecation and LoaF Agreement(Exhibit No.A-4to +xhibit No. A_9+tq this original applicatiqn.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank proved the execution of loan documents and liability of defendants to pay debts.
Whether the bank is entitled to a Recovery Certificate against unsecured and hypothecated assets.
Whether defendants are liable to pay dues with reduced interest rates on reducing balance.
Parties & counsel
- other
Pravas Kumar Singh
- applicant
PBI Bank
Coram
Pravas Kumar Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court