Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer

DRT12 Dec 2025OA/356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Originating Application for recovery of dues under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for principal, interest, and costs, declaring the borrowers jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 40,92,095.34 plus interest; bank entitled to proceed against properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 PRESENT: SRt cUMMADI cOptCHAND, pRESIDtNG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 356 OF 2025

¶3

Between:

¶4

Karnataka Bank Ltd. 6-3-1090/8/3, G1 to G4 Ground Floor, Munawar Chambers, Rajnhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. Represented by its General power of Attorney Holder Applicant

¶5

VERSUS 1. Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer, S/o. Mohammed Abdut Hadi, Aged about 53 years, Occ : Business Rlo 1-8-449t3t6, New Pati Gadda Noor Bagh, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 OO3.

¶6

Mrs. Anjum^parwez, Wo. Mohammed Abdul Baseer, Aged about 46 years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo 1-8-449t3t6, New Pati Gadda Noor Bagh, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003. Defendants

¶7

(oA. No. 3s61202s)

¶8

Counsel for the parties ;

¶9

For The Appticant N. Rama Rao For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 11.12.2025 Pronounced on 12.12.2025 Upload in website on 12.12.2025

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Appricant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.40,92,0g5.34 ps. (Rupees Fofi Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Eighty Five and Paise Thirty Four Only) with future interes t @ 13.9eo/o p.a compounded with monthry rests from the date of this apprication ti' the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property A and B to OA.

¶12

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendants availed Home Loan facility of Rs.34,3g,550/_ equated monthly installments of Rs.31,550/_ p8.90 % p.a compounded with monthly Loan Agreement dated 13.09.2019 12 IEC xtfr^* i

¶13

'trr^rof#7

¶14

(oA. No. 3so/202s)

¶15

in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant no. 1 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule to the OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle deeds dated 23'09.2019 and deposited originar Sare deed in favor of the Applicant Bank After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 01.02.2024 and issued Recall notice dated 03.02.2024 and Demand Notice dated 05.06.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶16

¶17

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 06..10.2025.

¶18

Sri. P. Vasudeva Murthy, Asst. Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22

¶19

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

o. The point that arise for consideration IS whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendanls ,reGgs prayed for? --S .,,r* ,^12oEcm6 ;" , s.s; .--{,i5"//

¶22

(OA. No. 3s6/202s)

¶23

Defendants and remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appticant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.22. tn view of the above, I hotd that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶24

¶25

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶26

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.40,92,0g5.34 ps. (Rupees Fofi Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Eighty Five and Paise Thirty Four Only) with future interest @ 13.g0% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶27

¶28

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties mentioned in the Schedules of properties A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of No. 1 and 2 towards realization of the debt6%\ 1,1^121ECA6 .: Q,,-#

¶30

(oA. No. 3s6/202s)

¶31

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶32

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

¶33

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12h day of Oec, 2025)

¶36

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mr. Mohammed Abdul Baseer

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

Smt Sangeeta Agarwal versus the Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mr Paravelli Rajesh versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Ms Nanditha Enterprises Private Limited versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Agro Industries

Katta Raj Vinay Kumar versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Manikanta Fly Ash Bricks