Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs MR VIJAYKUMAR HIRALAL on 4 April 2024
Registered on: 11.04.2023
Decided on: 04.04.2024
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI
TRANSFER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 22 of 2023
STATE BANK OF INDIA A Corporation
constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, Having its Corporate Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SAR Branch) at 6th Floor, The International, 16, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Through its Chief Manager Mr.
Subhash
Chandra
Prakashchandra Saraswat
…. APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. MR.
VIJAYKUMAR
HIRALAL
MOURYA Age about 37 years, Occu:
Service R/at Om Sainath Chawl, Near
Sanjay Dairy farm, Near Building no. 16, Unnat Nagar Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400 104.
2. MRS. USHA LALBRAT MOURYA
Age about 36 years, Occu: Service R/at
Om Sainath Chawl, Near Sanjay Dairy
farm, Near Building no. 16, Unnat Nagar
Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400
104.
3. MR.
LALBRATSINGH
HIRALAL
MOURYA Age about 38 years, Occu:
Service R/at Om Sainath Chawl, Near
Sanjay Dairy farm, Near Building no. 16, Unnat Nagar Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400 104.
… DEFENDANTS
_____________________________________________
Counsel for the Applicant :
Advocate A. Gaikwad i/b Advocate
Medha Behere
Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
1. The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 49,45,036.03 (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Forty Five Thousand Thirty Six and Paise Three Only) with interest @ 0.35 % above MCLR (Presently MCLR is 7.95% p.a.) from the date of filing of the present TA till its realisation.
2. Facts as succinctly set out in the present OA are that the Borrower had approached the Applicant Bank for availing Housing Loan and Insurance by making an application. Pursuant to the said request, Applicant vide sanction letter dated 04.01.2019, sanctioned Home Loan amount for Rs. 29,90,000/- and Rs. 1,94,000/- for Suraksha totally amounting to Rs. 31,84,000/-.
3. It is also stated the said home loan was secured by equitable mortgage of Flat No.101 on the 1st Floor, admeasuring 367.48 sq. ft. Carpet area in the building deposit for creation of mortgage executed duly registered at VSI 1-895-2018.
4. In consideration of sanction of the aforesaid facility, the borrower executed following loaning and security documents on 04.01.2019: i. Undertaking ii. Memorandum of Loan agreement for Home Loan iii. Affidavit
5. Further, Applicant has also been sanctioned Home Top-up loan by arrangement letter dated 04.01.2019 for amount of Rs. 10 Lakh.
6. In consideration of sanction of the aforesaid facility, the borrower executed Loan Agreement- Home Top Up document in favour of the Applicant.
7. It is also stated that the borrower visited the branch for the extension of equitable mortgage of the property and also signed conformation letter dated 04.01.2019.
8. However, after availing aforesaid facilities, borrower failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues, thus the account was classified as NPA on 11.02.2020. Thereafter, the Applicant issued notice under section 13 (2) to the borrower and called upon him do pay the outstanding dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.
9. Notice was issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Defendant nor any WS has been filed, they were proceeded ex-parte vide even date order.
10. The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through Rambhau Taktewale.
11. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.
12. The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of Defendant No. 1 to 3 is joint and several.
13. In the light of above discussions, the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendant.
O R D E R
(i) I allow the present O.A. and direct the Defendant No. 1 to 3 to pay to the Applicant, jointly and severally, within a period of 60 days, a sum of 49,45,036.03 (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Forty Five Thousand Thirty Six and Paise Three Only) with interest @ 0.35 % above MCLR (Presently MCLR is 7.95% p.a.) from the date of filing of the present TA till its realisation.
(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property, personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.
(iii) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.
(iv) Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.
(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.
Place: Mumbai.
(Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 04.04.2024
Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.
Tjs/-