Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mohammad Mustafa

DRT20 Feb 2025OA/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OA, the State Bank of India sought recovery of Rs. 90.78 lakh principal and interest from defendants who availed a cash credit loan and failed to repay. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that the bank established its claim through documentary evidence despite the defendants' lack of a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Directing joint and several payment of Rs. 90,78,834/- with interest, permitting attachment of mortgaged property, issuing Recovery Certificate, and allowing costs of the OA.

State Bank of India versus Mohammad Mustafa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 2OrH DAy OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.269 oJ 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Ap plica nt

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mohammad Mustafa, s/o KhasimSaheb, major, male, R/o H.No.1-934/6/8, Srinagar colony, Madhira village And mandal, Khammam dist- 507 203.

¶10

Smt Mohammad Mahaboob bee, W/o Mohammad Mustafa, major, Female, R/o H. No. 1-934/ 6/8, Srinagar colony, Madhira village

¶11

And Mandal, Khammam dist- 507 203.dist- 507 203.507 203.203.

¶12

And Mandal, Khammam dist- 507 203.dist- 507 203.507 203.203. Defenda nts
Counsel for the
For the Appli Sri P,V. Satyanarayana
ffi,+-g''X
For the Def Sri K. Kranthi Kumar
2 0 tEB 2075 -?
1. The Applicant the present OA against Defendants for
recovery of a total sum of Rs.gO,78,834/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs

¶13

(oA.No.269l202a)

¶14

Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty four only) with interest @ 11.95olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application ti[ the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶15

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants No.1 and 2 availed cash credit loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 30.09.2015 and defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for due repayment of outstanding riabirity. To secure the repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants executed Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 30.09.2015 and guarantee agreement dated 30.09.201S. Defendant no.1 extended mortgage of schedule mentioned property by deposit of tiHe deeds dated 2t.tO.2OL4 bearing Regd Sale deed No.5605/2013 dated 30.03.2013. subsequenry the cc rimit was enhanced to Rs.37.00 rakhs vide retter of arrangement on 21.05.2016 and executed supplemental agreement of roan cum hypothecation. After avairing the roan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued regar notice dated 70.06.2024. Inspite of severar

¶16

requests a
endants did not clear the outstanding.
,d\ ffi
Hence thigpA.
C,:i
2B rEB2m

¶17

(oA. No.26912024)

¶18

counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file written Statement.

¶19

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶22

counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.14. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶23

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶24

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the
Appt Yr sum of Rs.90,78,834/- (Rupees Ninety
dl - '-ffi
r Seve{p Eig
sand Eight Hundred and Thirty four
; zoFtBm i
fu-b*#

¶25

(OA. No.269/202a)

¶26

only) with interest @ 11.95olo p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization ;

¶27

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the OA.

¶30

t2. The Applicant shall File a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶31

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20rh day of Feb, 2025)

¶34

to. oor,.rifllr PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

I
).F//
")!.,!

¶36

rRuF 9oPY
/ -.
Y..#)_
ffilfttttrrr
Dd?.I, HVDERASAD.

State Bank of India v. Mohammad Mustafa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mohammad Mustafa

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

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant versus Central Bank of India

Smt.Konda Venkataramana versus M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

M S Dreams Bakery Foods versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus M/s. Raj Plastic

kankanala Swarupa and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.