BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th September 2009
COMPLAINT NO.22/2009
(Admitted on 09.02.2009)
PRESENT:
1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Abdul Rahiman,
So. N. Abbas,
Aged about 45 years,
Parladka House,
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.K.Srikrishna)
VERSUS
The Branch Manager,
Authorized Officer,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Vamana Kudva Towers,
Balmatta Road,
Mangalore 575 001. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.P.Narayana Bhat)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
It is submitted that, the Complainant was running a textile shop under the name and style “Apsara Super Bazar” at Golden complex, Vittal, Mangalore. It is stated that he was running the said business in two premises of the said complex. Out of the said two premises possessed by the Complainant one is possessing under ownership basis and the other one is holding on tenancy basis under one Mr.Ramla.
It is submitted that the Complainant has availed loan from the Opposite Party bank for the purchase of premises which is under the ownership of the Complainant and he has created charge too. It is submitted that for the non- payment of the amount due to the Opposite Party bank, the Opposite Party bank has taken recovery proceedings against the Complainant under SARFAESI Act (Securitization Act 2002.
It is submitted that, the Complainant initially was paying the installments due to the Opposite Party bank and subsequently during the off season in the textile business the Complainant was not able to pay the loan installments. Immediately thereafter the Opposite Party bank initiated recovery proceedings on 6.8.2008 behind the back of the Complainant, the Opposite Party bank has unathorizedly seized the textile materials worth over Rs.15,00,000/- and thereby the Opposite Party bank has literally restrained the Complainant of dealing with/disposing off the textile materials at an appropriate time. Apart from seizing textile materials the Opposite Party bank has also seized furnitures, interiors, electrical fittings belonging to the Complainant. The said textile materials are still lying unattended over several months and the Opposite Party bank has made the said textile materials un-saleable. It is submitted that the textile materials are not the subject matter of public auction and no notice was ever given to the Complainant regarding seizing of the textile materials, furnitures, interiors, electrical fittings. Those were seized in the absence of the Complainant. It is submitted the Opposite Party bank in the guise of the recovery proceedings has acted in bad faith beyond its jurisdiction and thereby imposed harassment and hardship to the Complainant. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party bank has not taken any fair steps, no opportunity was given to lift the textile materials and other items at an earliest point of time. The Opposite Party bank caused extensive damage to the Complainant’s business. The acts of the Opposite Party bank in the recovery proceedings are clearly beyond the powers contemplated under law. The Opposite Party bank has also unauthorizedly and admittedly locked the rented premises belonging to the Complainant. It is submitted that the unauthorized acts and irregular recovery proceedings caused extensive damage to the Complainant and the Opposite Party bank found guilty of providing deficiency in service and hence the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party bank and filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.19,90,000/- towards the loss of business and salability nature of the textile materials, illegal, unauthorized holding of furnitures, interiors, electrical fittings and also claimed cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.
Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version denied the entire allegations alleged in the complaint and submitted that the seizure of the movable and immovable property are in accordance with the law and the authorized officer of the Opposite Party bank initiated action against the Complainant for recovery under the Securitization Act and intimated the Complainant by way of notice and thereafter seized the properties mortgaged in favour of the bank. The authorized officer had issued notice dated 23.1.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act to the Complainant as well as to the guarantor, who have duly acknowledged the receipt and thereafter authorized officer took possession on 18.12.2006 and the possession notice was published in English and Kannada Daily newspaper dated 5.4.2007. It is submitted that the Complainant from time to time requesting the bank to defer the taking of further action pursuant to the notice dated 21.3.2006 with promise to settle the dues but the Complainant failed to keep up his commitment to settle the dues. The Opposite Party bank on 6.8.2008 was constrained to take physical possession of the mortgaged securities in terms of Securitization Act. On 6.8.2008 the Panchanama and inventory of immovables were drawn, the representative/ brother of the Complainant and the mortgagor and the guarantor were present during the proceedings. Thereafter the copy of the panchanama and inventory delivered to the Complainant personally on 7.8.2008 at 6 p.m. and it is denied that the goods worth more than Rs.15,00,000/- were seized or unauthorizedly seized from the shop premises. It is submitted that at the time of taking physical possession of the mortgaged assets, from the safety point of view of the stocks that were requested to be left/stored in shop premises by the brother of the Complainant, there being no provision for locking/closing the entry between the shop premises owned by the Complainant and the shop premises that was held by the Complainant on lease the Opposite Party bank was constrained to affix the lock to the shop premises held by the Complainant on lease. The guarantor for the loan and the owner of the shop premises had given consent to the same.
Further it is stated that the premises held by the Complainant on rent also under mortgaged to the Opposite Party bank by the owner thereof for the amount due by him and pursuant to the notice dated 17.11.2007 issued by the Opposite Party bank under Securitization Act to one Mr.Ramla. The said premises also have taken possession on 16.12.2008. The furniture, electrical fittings and interiors found in the premises have not been sold and they are in as it is condition. The removal of the electrical fittings and render the materials useless therefore Opposite Party bank has not got the fittings removed so far. Further it is submitted that after seizure of the premises which have been sold by public auction on 10.12.2008 and the possession of which is yet to be delivered and sale certificate is yet to be issued/executed in favour of the successful bidder. It is submitted that there is no deficiency and the seizure of the properties are in accordance with the provisions laid under the Securitization Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party bank committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Abdul Rahiman (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 and C2 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Mathew Moraes (RW1), Chief Manager and Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party Bank filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R38 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. The Complainant produced notes of arguments along with Securitization Act.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute before the FORA is that, the Complainant Abdul Rahiman was sanctioned term loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs on 22.9.2004 for acquiring the shop premises and the loan was disbursed on 23.9.2004 (as per Ex R36). The Complainant also availed Rs.6.43 lakhs from out of term loan of Rs.8.00 lakhs sanctioned. The Complainant was also sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 22.9.2004 for the purpose of textile business and the Complainant availed credit cash limit on 27.9.2004. It is also undisputed fact that the Complainant along with Ayesha was also sanctioned housing loan of Rs.6.80 lakhs on 14.7.2004 and the housing loan was availed by him on 16.7.2004. It is admitted that one Mr.Ramla, the owner of the shop premises held by the Complainant on lease, stood as guarantor for the credit facilities i.e., term loan of Rs.8,00,000/- and Credit Cash limit of Rs.5,00,000/- extended by the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant. The said Mr.Ramla, besides standing guarantor for the credit facilities extended to the Complainant, created/extended the mortgage of immovable property including the shop premises held by the Complainant on lease from Mr.Ramla in favour of the Opposite Party bank to secure credit facility extended to Ramla. The said Ramla availed credit facility against the mortgage of immovable property on which the building comprising of shops/premises, including the shop premises purchased by the Complainant from Mr.Ramla and the shop premises held by the Complainant on lease from Mr.Ramla. It is further not disputed that the loans/cash credit facilities availed by the Complainant became non-performing assets on 5.11.2005 due to non-payment of installments in the term loan and housing loan accounts.
Now the point in dispute between the parties are that though admitted by the Complainant that he was irregular in payment and there was a due on the loans/cash credit facilities availed by him, he is contended that the seizure of the properties by the Opposite Party bank is not in accordance with the provisions of the Securitization Act, the seizure is illegal. The unauthorized seizure and irregular recovery proceedings caused damage to the Complainant in his business activities and further contended that the Opposite Party bank has unauthorizedly seized the textile materials worth over Rs.15,00,000/- and thereby the Opposite Party bank has literally restrained the Complainant dealing with/disposing off the textile materials at an appropriate time. Apart from seizing of textile materials Opposite Party bank has also seized furnitures, interiors, electrical fittings belonging to the Complainant. The said textile materials still lying unattended over several months and thereby Opposite Party bank has made the said textile materials un-saleable. The textile materials are not the subject matter of the public auction and no notice was ever given to the Complainant regarding seizing of the textile materials and other fittings. Those were seized in the absence of the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party bank is illegal and caused harassment and hardship to the Complainant and the service rendered by the Opposite Party bank amounts to deficiency.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party bank contended that there is no unauthorized seizure of the properties. After initiating action against the Complainant for recovery under the Securitization Act and after intimating the Complainant, authorized officer seized the properties mortgaged in favour of the bank and there is no lapse, there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On going through the evidence led by the parties and the documents produced by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties, we find that, the Complainant admitted that he had availed term loan of Rs.8,00,000/- and cash credit limit of Rs.5,00,000/- and housing loan of Rs.6.80 lakhs and also admitted that initially the Complainant was paying the installments due to the Opposite Party bank towards the loan account and subsequently during the off season in the textile business the Complainant was not able to pay the loan installments due to the Opposite Party bank. Under such circumstances, no doubt the Opposite Party bank has initiated the recovery proceedings against the Complainant in this case.
Now the point for consideration is that whether the Opposite Party bank unauthorizedly and without following the statutory procedure laid under the Securitization Act seized the properties and caused loss to the Complainant? The answer is ‘No’. Because in the given case, the documents reveals that the loans/cash credit facilities availed by the Complainant became non-performing assets on 5.11.2005 due to non-payment of the installments in the term loan and housing loan accounts and irregular transactions/non-satisfactory operation of Cash Credit Account. A large number of cheques issued by the Complainant on his Cash Credit account came to the dishonoured for want of funds. It could be seen that the authorized officer of the Opposite Party bank issued recall notice dated 23.1.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act to the Complainant, who availed the term loan and cash credit facilities in the name of M/s.Apsara Super Bazar as its proprietor (as per Ex R1). As could be seen from the endorsement made by the Complainant in the copy of the notice, the said notice was received by the Complainant on 24.1.2006 (as per Ex R1). It is further seen that on the same day i.e., on 23.1.2006 the Opposite Party bank issued recall notice dated 23.1.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act in respect of the housing loan availed by the Complainant and the said notice was also received by the Complainant on 24.1.2006 as could be seen from the endorsement made by the Complainant in the copy of the notice (as per Ex R2). Similarly one Mr.N. Ramla, who guaranteed the cash credit and term loan limits granted to the Complainant, was issued with the recall notice dated 23.1.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act in respect of shop No.5. As the Complainant and the guarantor failed to comply with the section 13(2) notice the authorized officer of the Opposite Party bank took possession of the mortgaged security on 18.12.2006 (as per Ex R5) and possession notice dated 18.12.2006 was issued by the Opposite Party bank to Mr.Abdul Rahiman i.e., the Complainant. Similarly, the possession notice dated 18.12.2006 was issued by the authorized officer of the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant and Ayesha. It could be seen that the Complainant thereafter addressed a letter dated 9.3.2007 (i.e., Ex R11) to the Opposite Party bank undertaking to clear the dues in respect of cash credit facilities, term loan and housing loan accounts, undertaking to pay Rs.4.75 lakhs in cash into his Cash Credit account before 20.03.2007 to clear the dues. It is further seen that the Complainant also undertook to pay Rs.2.75 lakhs into term loan and housing loan accounts before 27.3.2007 for regularizing the account, which have become NPA because it could be seen that the cheque for Rs.7.50 lakhs on Vijaya Bank, Vittal branch with the request not to present the same and that he would pay Rs.4.75 lakhs by cash by 20.3.2007 and Rs.2.75 lakhs in cash by 27.3.2007 in lieu of the cheque to clear the bank dues. He also stated in his letter that “otherwise you can initiate legal action and proceed further action under Securitization Act as per bank norms”. However, it could be seen that the Complainant was totally failed to comply with his own commitment in the matter of payment is proved (as per Ex R11).
In the given case, it is made us very clear that the Opposite Party bank deferred taking further action for enforcement of security on the representation given by the Complainant as discussed in the preceding paras. Since the Complainant failed to pay the dues no doubt the Opposite Party bank initiated recovery proceedings is proved. Further it could be seen that before seizing the properties the authorized officer of the Opposite Party bank obtained necessary orders under Section 14 of the Securitization Act from Deputy Commissioner, D.K. Mangalore for taking actual possession (as per Ex R12 to R15). In the meantime, the Complainant issued a cheque dated 20.6.2008 for Rs.20,00,000/- towards the dues but the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Subsequently on 6.8.2008 the authorized officer took actual possession of the mortgage security in the presence of jurisdictional police which could be seen from the Ex R17 and R18. The copy of the letter dated 6.8.2008 addressed to the sub-inspector Vittal police station as to taking of physical possession was also given to the Complainant against his acknowledgement in the copy of the notice could be seen. It is not disputed by the Complainant that while taking possession of the shop premises No.2 his brother Mr.Mohammad Rafiq was present. The Opposite Party stated that at the request of Mohammad Rafiq the stocks were also taken and kept in the premises in as-is-where-is condition. The panchanama and inventory dated 6.8.2008 (i.e., Ex R18) copy of which was delivered to the Complainant on 7.8.2008 shows taking of possession of the shop premises No.2 and 5 and the goods at shop No.2 at the request of Mr.Mohammad Rafiq, brother of the Complainant in as-is-where-is condition. From the above document it could be seen that at the request of the brother of the Complainant the hypothecated goods were kept in as-is-where-is condition at the request and in the presence of Complainant’s brother. Under such circumstances the contention of the Complainant that the property is seized in his absence cannot be accepted. Further we have noticed that a letter dated 18.8.2008 (i.e., Ex R19) addressed by the Opposite Party bank to M/s.Apsara Super bazaar of the Complainant to get the goods released by finding a suitable buyer or else bank would be constrained to take steps for sale of hypothecated goods in as-is-where-is condition at the risk and costs of the Complainant. The said notice was served on 19.8.2008 (i.e., Ex R20) on the Complainant. The postal acknowledgement i.e., Ex R20 confirms the same. However, it is significant to note that the Complainant failed to take steps to pay the dues or to get the goods released. It could be seen that the Opposite Party bank waited till 19.12.2008 (i.e., Ex R27) and issued a letter dated 19.12.2008 again informing the Complainant that Opposite Party bank cannot further defer the sale of hypothecated stocks. The above documentary evidence in volume made crystal clear that the Opposite Party bank took all the necessary procedure in accordance with the Securitization Act and we do not find any lapse on the part of the Opposite Party bank. On the other hand, the Complainant himself being a defaulter failed to take proper steps either to settle the dues or to get the goods released. Under such circumstances, the Complainant cannot allege that the Opposite Party bank unauthorizedly seized the immovable properties. There is no credible available on record in order to substantiate the same.
Apart from the above, we have noticed in this case that the immovable secured assets belonging to the Complainant and guarantor Mr.Ramla were sold on 10.12.2008 in public auction (as per Ex R25 and R26). Meanwhile the Complainant filed appeal in ASA No.400/2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bangalore under Section 17(1) of the Securitization Act to set aside the auction sale dated 10.12.2008 and also obtained an interim order dated 23.12.2008 (as per Ex R28) which reads thus:
“Interim stay of confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate etc. until further orders. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs on or before 30.1.2009. The Opposite Party bank has been directed to appear before DRT on 31.1.2009”. In view of the interim order of stay the Opposite Party bank has not taken further steps for executing sale certificate in respect of the immovable secured assets already sold and for the sale of immovable secured assets, the possession of which was taken by the Opposite Party bank. Under such circumstances, it is better for the Complainant to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bangalore because the subject matter is involved with regard to the recovery proceedings and the Complainant can very well put forward his grievances before the Debts Recovery Tribunal if the Opposite Party bank unauthorizedly seized the properties and which can be released by getting suitable order. But on the available record placed before us, nowhere reveals that the Opposite Party bank committed deficiency while seizing the movable or immovable properties. It cannot be contended that the textile materials that were lying in the shop premises continues to lye in the premises, consequent to taking possession of the hypothecated movables/stock in trade the Opposite Party bank made the textile materials un-saleable. Because immediately after taking possession of the movable/stock in trade the Complainant was informed by furnishing the copy of the inventories. The Complainant ought to have taken steps for releasing the goods either by paying the goods or by getting suitable buyers for the same. As the Complainant failed to take steps to get the movables released the Opposite Party bank issued notice dated 19.12.2008 (as per Ex R27) calling upon the Complainant to get the hypothecated stocks/movables. We do not find any lapses on the part of the Opposite Party bank.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that whatever the movables and the immovables seized by the Opposite Party bank is hypothecated/mortgaged to the Opposite Party bank under the above loans which could be seen in Ex R35, R36 i.e., the agreement of hypothecation of assets and agreement of term loan. Under the above documents the Complainant mortgaged all the movables, immovable and stock in trade recovered by the Opposite Party bank. There is no lapse on the part of the Opposite Party bank. On overall discussion of the above points, we hold that the Opposite Party bank conducted the recovery proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act is in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the above Act. We do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party bank officials while dealing with the recovery proceedings. The Opposite Party bank has justified before us that the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank as per the statutory procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, we find that there is no force/merits in the complaint and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of September 2009.)
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.Abdul Rahiman – Complainant.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 27.01.2009: Complaint given by the Complainant before the Station House Officer, Vittal Police Station.
Ex C2 – 31.01.2009: Endorsement issued by the S.H.O. Vittal.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr.Mathew Moraes, Chief Manager and Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party Bank.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 23.01.2006: Xerox copy of the recall notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act to the Complainant in respect of Cash Credit and Term Loan Account containing acknowledgement of the Complainant for having received the same on 24.1.2006.
Ex R2 – 23.01.2006: Xerox copy of the recall notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act to the Complainant in respect of Housing Loan Account containing acknowledgement of the Complainant for having received the same on 24.1.2006.
Ex R3 – 23.01.2006: Xerox copy of the recall notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act issued to Mr.N.Ramla, the guarantor in respect of cash credit and term loan account granted to the Complainant.
Ex R4 – 17.11.2007: Xerox copy of recall notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act issued to Mr.N.Ramla, the guarantor, in respect of loans granted to him.
Ex R5 – 18.12.2006: Xerox copy of possession notice issued by the authorized officer in respect of shop No.5 in the Golden Complex.
Ex R6 – 18.12.2006: Xerox copy of possession notice issued by the authorized officer in respect of shop No.2 in the Golden Complex.
Ex R7 – 18.12.2006: Xerox copy of possession notice issued by the Authorized officer in respect of house property.
Ex R8 – 18.12.2006: Xerox copy of possession notice issued by the authorized officer in respect of extension of house property.
Ex R9 – 05.04.2007: Xerox copy of English Daily the Hindu.
Ex R10 – 05.04.2007: Xerox copy of Kannada Daily Udayavani.
Ex R11 – 09.03.2007: Xerox copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party bank undertaking to pay.
Ex R12 – 18.03.2008: Xerox copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore under Section 14 bearing No.130/2007-08.
Ex R13 – 22.04.2008: Xerox copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore under Section 14 bearing No.131/2007-08.
Ex R14 – 17.03.2008: Xerox copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore under Section 14 bearing No.129/2007-08.
Ex R15 – 26.04.2008: Xerox copy of revised proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore under Section 14 of Securitization Act rectifying the earlier order dated 17.3.2008 bearing No.129/2007-08.
Ex R16 – 06.08.2008: Xerox copy of letter addressed by Mr.Ramla to the Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party bank permitting to lock the premises and disclaiming rent till the stock is removed.
Ex R17 – 06.08.2008: Xerox copy of letter addressed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as to taking of possession of stocks containing endorsement of the Complainant for having received the same on 7.8.2008.
Ex R18 – 06.08.2008: Xerox copy of letter addressed to Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Vittal enclosing the panchanama and inventories containing endorsement of the Complainant for having received the same on 7.8.2008.
Ex R19 – 18.08.2008: Xerox copy of the letter addressed by the Opposite Party bank to M/s.Apsara Super Bazar of the Complainant to get the goods released.
Ex R20 – 19.08.2008: Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement of the Complainant in respect of notice dated 18.8.2008.
Ex R21 – 18.08.2008: Xerox copy of notice of sale of secured assets given by the Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant.
Ex R22 – 18.08.2008: Xerox copy of notice of sale of secured assets given by the Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party bank to the Complainant and Ayesha Rahiman.
Ex R23 – 18.08.2008: Xerox copy of notice of sale of secured assets given by the Authorized Officer of the Opposite Party bank to Mr.N.Ramla.
Ex R24 – 18.08.2008: Xerox copy of notice issued to Complainant and Ayesha Rahiman in respect of house property.
Ex R25 – 05.11.2008: Xerox copy of 30 days notice issued by the Authorized Officer to M/s.Apsara Super Bazar, Proprietor Mr.Abdul Rahiman enclosing notice of public auction (English Version).
Ex R26 – 05.11.2008: Xerox copy of 30 days notice issued by the Authorized Officer to Mr.Ramla enclosing notice of public auction (English version).
Ex R27 – 19.12.2008: Xerox copy of notice issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex R28 – 23.12.2008: Xerox copy of interim order of Debts Recovery Tribunal Mangalore communicated to the Opposite Party.
Ex R29 – 17.12.2008: Xerox copy of ASA No.400/2008 filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party bank before DRT, Bangalore.
Ex R30 - : The extract of Term Loan account from 23.9.2004 to 1.3.2009.
Ex R31 - : True extract of C.C. Account from 27.10.2004 to 1.3.2009.
Ex R32 - : True extract of Housing Loan Account from 16.7.2004 to 1.3.2009.
Ex R33 – 16.12.2008: Xerox copy of possession notice in respect of the property of Mr.N.Ramla, in which the building Golden Complex is situated.
Ex R34 – 29.01.2009: Xerox copy of valuation report.
Ex R35 – 22.09.2004: Xerox copy of Agreement for Hypothecation of assets executed by the M/s.Apsara Super Bazar, represented by its sole proprietor Mr.Abdul Rahiman.
Ex R36 – 22.09.2004: Xerox copy of agreement for term loan executed by the M/s.Apsara Super bazaar, represented by the Complainant.
Ex R37 – 03.03.2009: Xerox copy of statement of objections/counter filed by the Opposite Party bank in A.S.A. No.400/2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
Ex R38 – 24.04.2009: Certified copy of the order of Debts recovery Tribunal Bangalore in ASA 400/2008.
Dated:15.09.2009 PRESIDENT
