SOUTH INDIAN BANK vs A.U. ZAKIR HUSSAIN on 22 January 2019

FINAL ORDER

This Original Application is filed under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,11,965.02 due under the CCOL account with interest @19% per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @2% per annum from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets on the OA schedule properties. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The applicant is a banking company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and governed by the provisions of Banking Regulations Act having its head office at Thrissur and one of the branches at Kollam. The 1st defendant as the sole proprietor of M/s.ARS Industries had approached the applicant bank and sought for a loan for his business purpose. Accordingly, the applicant had granted to the 1st defendant a cash credit limit of Rs.6.85 lakhs on 16.12.2004 as per sanction letter dated 16.12.2004. As security for repayment of the balance in the aforesaid loan, on 16.12.2004 the 1st defendant executed demand promissory notice, letter of continuity, agreement for hypothecation whereby ‘A’ schedule property to the OA stood hypothecated in favour of the applicant bank.

2. According to the applicant bank, the 1st defendant had also created mortgage by deposit of title deeds over the property described in ‘B’ schedule in favour of the applicant bank with intention to create security towards the CCOL account, which was confirmed by executing a letter dated 17.12.2004. Thereafter, the 1st defendant approached the applicant bank for enhancement of the CCOL limit to Rs.9 lakhs and for a fresh cheque discounting facility of Rs.3 lakhs, which were granted as per sanction letter dated 11.11.2005. As security for repayment of the CCOL of Rs.9 lakhs, on

11.11.2005, the 1st defendant executed demand promissory note, letter of continuity and agreement of hypothecation whereby ‘A’ schedule property to the OA stood hypothecated in favour of the bank. In this connection, the 1st defendant called at the applicant bank and admitted and declared that the benefit of mortgage of ‘B’ schedule property created already shall stand extended to cover repayment of the dues under the above limit and on 12.11.2005, the 1st defendant executed a letter of extension of mortgage in confirmation thereof.

3. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the 1st defendant again approached the bank and sought for enhancement of the CCOL facility to Rs.10 lakhs. Accordingly, the 1st defendant was granted a temporary enhancement of the CCOL overdraft facility of Rs.10 lakhs for a month as per sanction letter dated 25.01.2007. As security for repayment of the balance in the enhanced CCOL of Rs.10 lakhs, the 1st defendant executed demand promissory note dated 25.01.2007, letter of continuity and agreement of hypothecation whereby the property described in ‘A’ schedule stood hypothecated to the bank. In this connection, the 1st defendant called at the applicant bank and admitted and declared that the benefit of mortgage of ‘B’ schedule property already created shall stand extended to cover repayment of the dues under the above limit and on 26.01.2007, the 1st defendant executed a letter of extension of mortgage in confirmation thereof.

4. According to the applicant bank, the 1st defendant again approached the bank for enhancement of the CCOL limit to Rs.14

lakhs and a cheque discounting facility of Rs.1.5 lakhs, which was granted as per sanction letter dated 01.08.2007 and the same was countersigned by defendants 1 and 2 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for repayment of the balance in the enhanced CCOL of Rs.14 lakhs, defendants 1 and 2 executed demand promissory notice dated 01.08.2007, letter of continuity and agreement of hypothecation whereby the property described in ‘A’ schedule stood hypothecated to the bank. In this connection, the 1st defendant called at the applicant bank and admitted and declared that the benefit of mortgage of ‘B’ schedule property created already shall stand extended to cover repayment of the dues under the above limit and on 02.08.2007, the 1st defendant executed a letter of extension of mortgage in confirmation thereof.

5. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the 1st defendant thereafter approached the bank for enhancement of the CCOL limit to Rs.18 lakhs and the cheque discounting facility to Rs.2 lakhs, which was granted as per sanction letter dated 17.06.2008 and the same was countersigned by defendants 1 and 2 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for repayment of the balance in the enhanced CCOL of Rs.18 lakhs, defendants 1 and 2 executed demand promissory notice dated 17.06.2008 and agreement of hypothecation whereby the property described in ‘A’ schedule stood hypothecated to the bank; and the 2nd defendant executed agreement of guarantee dated 17.06.2008 in favor of the applicant bank. In this connection, the 1st defendant executed credit facility agreements with regard to the aforesaid facilities. The 1st defendant also accepted the general terms and conditions as applicable to the credit facilities. The 1st defendant called at the applicant bank, admitted and declared that the benefit of mortgage of ‘B’ schedule property created is extended to cover repayment of the dues under the above limit and on 17.06.2008, the 1st defendant executed a letter of extension of mortgage in confirmation thereof.

6. It is urged by the applicant that defendants 1 and 2 availed the credit facilities/operated the accounts and withdraw money from the applicant bank, but they defaulted in repayment of the amounts due to the bank. The defendants executed letters of acknowledgment in favour of the applicant bank. As the defendants did not repay the amount even thereafter, lawyer notice was issued to the defendants recalling the entire credit facilities. Subsequent to availing of the limits, the 1st defendant sold the mortgaged property to defendants 3 and 4 on 04.12.2008, hence, they are arrayed as defendants. It is suspected that the title deeds deposited by the 1st defendant for creation of equitable mortgage is forged and hence a police complaint has been lodged with Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam East Police Station and the investigation thereon is pending. As per the accounts kept by the applicant bank, an amount of Rs.25,11,965.02 is due to the bank under the CCOL account of Rs.18 lakhs.

7. The 1st defendant was duly served with summons. But he neither appeared nor was he represented and hence the 1st defendant was set exparte on 14.03.2013.

8. The 2nd defendant filed reply statement contending inter alia that this defendant has no knowledge of any transaction between the applicant and the 1st defendant. The averment that the 1st defendant had created equitable mortgage of his property and the same was being extended for the enhanced and continuing facilities are false and hence denied. The OA filed by the applicant is barred by limitation. The 1st defendant had never handed over the original title deed to the applicant bank and had never deposited the same with intention to create any equitable mortgage over any portion of the property. To the knowledge of this defendant, the 1st defendant had not sought for enhancement of the cash credit limit to Rs.9 lakhs nor had he executed any demand promissory notice or agreement of hypothecation and that he had not mortgaged B schedule property to the applicant. The 1st defendant had not executed document Nos.13 to 17 in favour of the applicant bank.

9. It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that she had never executed any document in favour of the applicant bank. This defendant had put her signature in some blank papers and had entrusted it to her husband, the 1st defendant. This defendant has no knowledge of the documents 18 to 20. The applicant has no cause of action to file this application against this defendant. The 2nd respondent, therefore, prayed to dismiss the OA with costs.

10. The defendants and filed written statement contending inter alia that an extent of 67 cents of property and excess thereof totaling to 70 cents of land comprised in old Sy.No.7731 of Kottamkara Village is belonging to the 1st applicant by virtue of settlement deed No.1796/1991 of Kilikolloor SRO, sale deed No.1396/1997 and settlement deed No.2940/1997 of Kannanalloor SRO. Out of the aforesaid property, 35 cents (12.15 Ares) of land comprised in Re-Sy.No.20/2/04 and 2.05 Ares in Re-Sy.No.20/2/5 forming the eastern portion of the aforesaid 70 cents along with 1.76 Ares (4.340 cents) along with the Saw Mill building thereon were sold by the 1st defendant to the 3rd respondent as per sale deed No.1696/2008 dated 12.05.2008 of Kilikolloor SRO. The 4th defendant is the wife of the 3rd defendant.

11. It is the case of defendants 3 and 4 that while they were in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties, the 1st defendant offered to sell his remaining property covered under sale deed No.1796/1991 treating the same as 15.750 cents and 6.34 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.20/2/2-1 to the 3rd defendant and she accepted it. In consideration of the receipt of an advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs, the 1st defendant executed an agreement for sale in favour of the 3rd respondent on 18.08.2008. While the said agreement was in force, the 1st defendant offered to sell the remaining 15 cents of land along with an old building therein to defendants 3 and 4 and they purchased it as per sale deed No.3966 dated 05.11.2008. Thereafter, the 3rd defendant in enforcement of the aforesaid agreement for sale dated 18.08.2008 purchased the aforesaid 6.34 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.20/2/2-1 from the 1st defendant in the joint names of defendants 3 and 4 as per sale deed No.4323 dated 04.12.2008 and they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of it and they hold it under their thandaper account.

12. According to defendants 3 and 4, the 1st defendant had never handed over the original settlement deed No.1796/1991 to the applicant at any time with intention to create any equitable mortgage over any portion of the aforesaid properties. As a matter of fact, the original of the settlement deed No.1796/91 was under deposit with Central Bank of India, Kadappakkada Branch and the same was released only after settlement of the dues on 05.11.2008. The said original settlement deed No.1796/91 was produced by the 3rd defendant in OS No.72/2009 of the Sub-Court, Kollam and the Hon'ble Sub-Court passed an order directing the same to be kept in safe custody. As such, there was no chance of the 1st defendant handing over the said original title deed to the applicant bank and depositing the same with the applicant bank with intention to create equitable mortgage in respect of ‘B’ schedule property.

13. It is urged by defendants 3 and 4 that it is utter false for the applicant bank to state that the 1st defendant on 04.12.2008 sold the mortgaged property to defendants 3 and 4. The properties purchased by defendants 3 and 4 from the 1st defendant are not mortgaged properties as alleged by the applicant. The applicant is having no cause of action to file this application against defendants 3 and 4 and it is prayed to dismiss the application as against B schedule property with costs of these defendants.

14. The evidence on the side of the applicant bank consists of the proof affidavit of its Senior Manager, AW1 and Exts.A1 to A37. The defendants 2 to 4 had not adduced any evidence on their side.

15. Heard arguments and perused the records of the case. The following points arise for my consideration:

(i) Whether the applicant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for in the OA?

(ii) What order?

Findings:

Point No.1: In affirmative Point No.2: As per order

Reasons:

16. The applicant bank filed the above OA before the Tribunal on 24.05.2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,11,965.02 due under the CCOL account together with future interest thereon from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets and by sale of the OA schedule properties. In order to substantiate the case of the applicant, they produced 37 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A37. It could be construed from the evidence adduced by the applicant bank that at the request of the 1st defendant, the applicant had granted cash credit limit of Rs.6.85 lakhs to the 1st defendant on 16.12.2004 as per Ext.A1 sanction letter dated 16.12.2004, which was countersigned by him in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for repayment of the aforesaid loan, the 1st defendant executed Ext.A2 demand promissory note dated 16.12.2004, Ext.A3 letter of continuity and Ext.A4 agreement of hypothecation whereby ‘A’ schedule property to the OA stood hypothecated in favour of the applicant bank.

17. As collateral security for repayment of the aforesaid loan, the 1st defendant created equitable mortgage over ‘B’ schedule property to the OA by deposit of Ext.A5 settlement deed No.1796/1991 dated 04.09.1991 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004 and the 1st defendant also executed Ext.A6 memorandum of deposit of title deed in favour of the applicant bank confirming the deposit of Ext.A5 settlement deed and related documents with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004. Thereafter, at the request of the 1st defendant, the cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs.9 lakhs and also a cheque discounting facility of Rs.3 lakhs was granted as per Ext.A7 sanction letter dated 11.11.2005, which was countersigned by him in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof.

18. As security for repayment of the CCOL of Rs.9 lakhs, 1st defendant executed Ext.A8 demand promissory notice dated 11.11.2005 for Rs.9 lakhs, Ext.A9 letter of continuity and Ext.A10 agreement of hypothecation in favour of the bank. To secure the aggregate loan amount of Rs.12 lakhs granted as stated above, the 1st defendant extended the benefit of mortgage already created over ‘B’ schedule property to the OA and executed Ext.A11 letter of extension of mortgage dated 12.11.2005 confirming the deposit of settlement deed No.1796/1991 dated 04.09.1991 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004 and the extension thereof.

19. Further, at the request of the 1st respondent, the applicant bank had granted a temporary enhancement of the CCOL overdraft facility to Rs.10 lakhs for a month as per Ext.A12 sanction letter dated 25.01.2007, which was countersigned by the 1st defendant in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for the aforesaid limit, the 1st defendant executed Exts.A13 and A14 demand promissory note dated 25.01.2007 for Rs.9 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh respectively, Ext.A15 letter of continuity and Ext.A16 agreement of hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank. The 1st defendant had also executed Ext.A17 letter of extension of mortgage dated 26.01.2007 confirming the deposit of settlement deed No.1796/1991 dated 04.09.1991 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004 and the extension thereof to secure the credit facility to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs.

20. At the request of the 1st defendant, the applicant bank had again enhanced the CCOL limit to Rs.14 lakhs and further granted a cheque discounting facility of Rs.1.50 lakhs as per Ext.A18 sanction letter dated 01.08.2007, which was countersigned by defendants 1 and 2 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for the aforesaid limits, defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext.A19 demand promissory notice dated 01.08.2007 for Rs.14 lakhs, Ext.A20 letter of continuity and Ext.A21 agreement of hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank. The 1st defendant had also admitted and declared that the benefit of mortgage created over ‘B’ schedule property shall stand extended to cover repayment of the dues under the aforesaid limit by executing Ext.A22 letter of extension of mortgage dated 02.08.2007 confirming the deposit of settlement deed No.1796/1991 dated 04.09.1991 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004 and the extension thereof.

21. The records would show that the 1st defendant had again approached the bank for enhancement of the CCOL limit from Rs.14 lakhs to Rs.18 lakhs and the cheque discounting facility from Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs, which was granted by the applicant bank as per Ext.A23 sanction letter dated 17.06.2008, which was countersigned by defendants 1 and 2 in token of having accepted the terms and conditions thereof. As security for the aforesaid enhanced CCOL limit of Rs.18 lakhs, defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext.A24 demand promissory notice dated 17.06.2008 for Rs.18 lakhs and the 1st defendant executed Ext.A25 agreement of hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank. The 2nd defendant had executed Ext.A26 agreement of guarantee dated 17.06.2008 in favour of the applicant bank guaranteeing due repayment of the amount due to the bank in respect of the credit facilities granted to the 1st defendant.

22. Further, the 1st defendant had executed Exts.A27 and A28 credit facility agreements in respect of discounting of cheques and CCOL facility respectively and Ext.A29 general terms and conditions applicable to the credit facilities. In addition to the above, the 1st defendant had extended the benefit of mortgage created over ‘B’ schedule property to the OA and executed Ext.A30 letter of extension of mortgage dated 17.06.2008 confirming the deposit of settlement deed No.1796/1991 dated 04.09.1991 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2004 and the extension thereof to secure the additional cash credit limit of Rs.4 lakhs. The materials on records would show that the 1st defendant had executed Exts.A31 and A32 letters of acknowledgment of debt respectively dated 11.11.2005 and 25.01.2007 and defendants 1 and 2 executed Exts.A33 to A35 letters of acknowledgment of debt respectively dated 01.08.2007, 01.08.2007, 17.06.2008 confirming the balance under the CCOL account and the cheque discounting facility.

23. The records would indicate that the applicant bank sent Ext.A36 lawyer notice dated 21.07.2009 calling upon defendants 1 and 2 to repay the amount due under the CCOL and cheque discounting facilities, aggregating to Rs.20,78,476.02. According to the applicant bank, despite the receipt of Ext.A36 lawyer notice, defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to settle the liability. As per Ext.A37 statement of account maintained by the applicant bank, an amount of Rs.25,11,965.02 (inclusive of penal interest of Rs.53,161.21) is due under the CCOL account as on 23.05.2010. According to the applicant bank, defendants 3 and 4 are subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged property and hence they are arrayed as defendants in the OA, but no relief is sought against them. The original documents produced by the applicant bank i.e., Exts.A1 to 35 corroborate the claim of the applicant bank made in the OA and as such, the OA filed by the applicant bank is only to be allowed.

24. It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that the OA filed by the applicant is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the evidence adduced by the applicant bank would go to show that the enhanced CCOL limit of Rs.18 lakhs was availed by defendants 1 and 2 on 17.06.2008 after executing Ext.A24 demand promissory notice dated 17.06.2008 and Ext.A25 agreement of hypothecation and that the 2nd defendant had executed Ext.A26 guarantee agreement dated 17.06.2008 guaranteeing due repayment of the amount due to the bank in respect of the credit facilities granted to the 1st defendant. Further, defendants 1 and 2 had executed Ext.A35 letter of acknowledgment of debt dated 17.06.2008 acknowledging the liability under the CCOL account as on 16.06.2008. In such circumstance, the Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the OA filed by the applicant bank on 24.05.2010 is well within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

25. It is the further contention of the 2nd defendant that she had put her signature in some blank papers and had entrusted it to her husband, the 1st defendant; however, she had never executed any document in favour of the applicant bank; and that she has no knowledge about the execution of documents 18 to 20 as well and hence the applicant bank has no cause of action to file this application against the 2nd defendant.

26. Even though the 2nd defendant is vaguely contending that she had signed only some blank papers and had not executed any document in favour of the applicant bank, she had miserably failed to establish before the Tribunal that the signatures appended in the loaning/security documents viz., Exts.A18 to A20 and also in Ext.A23, Ext.A26, Ext.A33, Ext.A34, Ext.A35 are not that of hers and the claim made by the applicant as against the 2nd defendant is a bogus one. In such backdrop, the mere averments/allegation of the 2nd defendant as to non-execution of the loan documents do not merit any consideration of the Tribunal.

27. According to defendants 3 and 4, the 1st defendant had never handed over the original settlement deed No.1796/1991 to the

applicant at any time with intention to create any equitable mortgage over ‘B’ schedule property; and as a matter of fact, the original of the settlement deed No.1796/1991 was under deposit with Central Bank of India, Kadappakkada Branch and the same was got released only after settlement of the dues on 05.11.2008. It is the further case of defendants 3 and 4 that the said original settlement deed No.1796/91 was produced by the 3rd defendant in OS No.72/2009 of the Sub- Court, Kollam and the Hon'ble Sub-Court passed an order directing the same to be kept in safe custody and hence there was no chance of the 1st defendant handing over the said original title deed to the applicant bank and depositing the same with the applicant bank with intention to create equitable mortgage in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and, therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the OA as against ‘B’ schedule property with costs of these defendants.

28. Although defendants 3 and 4 are specifically contending that 1st defendant had never handed over the original settlement deed No.1796/1991 to the applicant bank at any point of time and the said document had been produced by the 3rd defendant before the Sub-Court, Kollam in OS No.72/2009 and the same is in the safe custody of the Sub-Court, they were unable to produce any scrap of evidence to substantiate their such case. Furthermore, the Tribunal while dealing with an application filed under S.19(1) of the Act has limited jurisdiction to adjudicate only the debts due to banks and financial institutions from the borrowers and the Tribunal deems it not proper to delve at depth the contentions raised by defendants 3 and 4 with regard to the validity of creation of mortgage over ‘B’ schedule property in absence of any documents produced by the defendants 3 and 4.

29. On a careful analysis of the materials available on record, the Tribunal could come to a conclusion that the amount claimed by the applicant bank from defendants 1 and 2 is a legally recoverable debt by virtue of the loaning/security documents executed by them in favour of the applicant bank and that there is charge over ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and the OA claim amount can be recovered by sale of the said properties.

30. It could be inferred from Ext.A37 statement of account produced by the applicant bank that the applicant has charged a sum of Rs.53,161.21 by way of penal interest in the CCOL account. It is well settled that penal interest cannot be capitalised and no interest can be charged on penal interest. The applicant bank, therefore, is not entitled to get any interest on the aforesaid penal interest of Rs.53,161.21.

31. Having regard to the amounts advanced, the interest and penal interest applied, the repayments effected and the default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente-lite and post-decree interest @13% per annum.

FINAL ORDER

32. The OA is allowed with costs.

33. The applicant bank is allowed to recover the sum of Rs.25,11,965.02 (Rupees twenty five lakhs eleven thousand nine hundred sixty five and Paise two only) with further interest on the sum of Rs.24,58,803.81 (Rupees twenty four lakhs fifty eight thousand eight hundred three and Paise eighty one only) @13% per annum from 24.05.2010 till realization and also its costs from defendants 1 and 2 and by sale of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

34. In the event of non-realization of the OA claim amount despite the sale of the mortgaged properties referred above, the bank is at liberty to proceed against the other properties of the defendants both movable and immovable, as required under law.

35. ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules to the OA shall be appended to this order.

36. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

37. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

38. The Registry is directed to communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned by speed post or registered post with AD. [Dictated to the PS, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of January, 2019]

(S.V.GOWRAMMA)

Presiding Officer

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: P.Ravindran, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Exhibits on the part of the applicant

Ext.No. Date Particulars of documents

A1 16.12.2004 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank. A2 16.12.2004 Demand promissory notice for Rs.6.85 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A3 16.12.2004 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A4 16.12.2004 Agreement of hypothecation executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A5 04.09.1991 Settlement deed No.1796/1991 of Kilikolloor SRO. A6 17.12.2004 Letter executed by the 1st defendant confirming the deposit of title deeds with the applicant bank. A7 11.11.2005 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank. A8 11.11.2005 Demand promissory notice for Rs.9 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A9 11.11.2005 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A10 11.11.2005 Agreement of hypothecation executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A11 12.11.2005 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A12 25.01.2007 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank. A13 25.01.2007 Demand promissory notice for Rs.9 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A14 25.01.2007 Demand promissory notice for Rs.1 lakh executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A15 25.01.2007 Letter of continuity executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A16 25.01.2007 Agreement of hypothecation executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A17 26.01.2007 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. A18 01.08.2007 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank. A19 01.08.2007 Demand promissory notice for Rs.14 lakhs executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank. A20 01.08.2007 Letter of continuity executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank. A21 01.08.2007 Agreement of hypothecation executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank. A22 01.08.2007 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A23 17.06.2008 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank. A24 17.06.2008 Demand promissory notice for Rs.18 lakhs executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A25 17.06.2008 Agreement of hypothecation executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A26 17.06.2008 Agreement of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A27 17.06.2008 Credit facility agreement in respect of CCOL facility executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A28 17.06.2008 Credit facility agreement in respect of cheque discounting facility executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A29 … General terms and conditions applicable to credit facilities of the applicant bank executed by the 1st defendant. A30 17.06.2008 Letter of extension of mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A31 11.11.2005 Letter of acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A32 25.01.2007 Letter of acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the applicant bank. A33 01.08.2007 Letter of acknowledgment of debt in respect of cheque discounting account executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank. A34 01.08.2007 Letter of acknowledgment of debt in respect of CCOL account executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank.

A35 17.06.2008 Letter of acknowledgment of debt executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant bank. A36 21.07.2009 Copy of lawyer notice issued to defendants 1 and 2. A37 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the CCOL facility.

(PRESIDING OFFICER)

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2019

Present: S.V.Gowramma, B.A., LL.B Presiding Officer

TA No..1487/2016 (OA No.229/2010) Between The South Indian Bank Ltd. …Applicant And A.U.Zakir Hussain & 3 others.

…Defendants

FINAL ORDER