Allowed

Bussa Veeresham v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

DRT20 Oct 2022SA/133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, alleging non-service and non-compliance with notification rules. The Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside the notice due to lack of proof regarding affixation or publication as mandated by the 2002 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed by setting aside the possession Notice dt. 10.05.2022 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Bussa Veeresham versus Cholamandalam Investment… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE zOTH DAY OF OCTOBER,2C22

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.13B,/2O22

¶5

Bussa Veeresham, S/o. Bala Veeraiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R / o.2-6-9 l, Ward No.25, poosalagally, Nizamabad, Telangana - SO3 0Ol.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer, D.No.7- 1-59/ 2, 59161 1o2, lst Floor, Mandana Tower,

¶9

Ameerpet, Hyderabad - SOO O16.

¶10

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer, 2nd floor, Plot No.23, 133, G.N. Complex, Arya Nagar, Opp. Uppalamallaiah petrol pump, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad-SO3oO 1

¶11

Respondents.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Sri T. Vijay Kumar. Respondents No.l & 2 Ex-parte.

¶13

.:ORDERi

¶14

This application is Iiled by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, for setting aside the measures taken by the Respondent Bank ./. .--,rll:-.1"e-(+) u/ s.^{of the SARFAESI Act, vide possession} Notice dt.ro.o5.2022, /z-CBII ll{ir:'-;, i-neludiri$ the action of the Respondent Bank in trying to take physicar potsession n^**.*O6^f the application schedule propeDrone r ty.rv * 2? 0^qQ,L m. e in the application are that, the Applicant availed of Rs.57,OO,00O/- from the Respondent Bank during and thereafter he was paying the loan instalments

¶15

SA.No,113/2022

¶16

regularly to the Respondent Bank. However, subsequenfly, he could not pay some instalments due to financial probrems and he approached the Respondent Bank and sought time for payment of the loan amount_ Upon assurances given by the Respondent Bank, the Applicant was in the process of accumulating funds to clear the entire loan amount. But, all of a sudden, the Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dt.27.O1.2022 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, claiming total amount of Rs'60,33,174.07ps., without serving the said notice personally. subsequently, the Applicant came to know that the Respondent Bank has issued^possession Notice dt. 10.0 5.2022, u/s. 13(a) of the sARFAESI Act, but the said notice was not served on the Applicant personally. The Respondent Bank has neither affixed the said possession Notice on the schedule property nor pubrished the said notice in two daily newspapers. The Respondent Bank, without following the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002, is trying to take physical possession of the application schedule property. Hence, the SA.

¶17

a Notices were served on Respondents No. I & 2 Bank and they were called absent. Respondents No.1 & 2 remained ex_parte.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

¶19

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶20

i) Whether the possession Notice dt.lO.OS.2O22, issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the application schedule property is liable to be set-aside?

¶21

i0 re1ief.2

¶22

'6 ;TF{Bbflffi["t averments made in the application has admitted ',,^{:1,that after} a(er ." ;; .. .--Y. the Home Equity Loan of Rs.S7,00,000/, he paid '. ' some lOaa-:tn$ ts and thereafter due to his financial problems he

¶23

SA.No.113/2022

¶24

could not pay the loan amount. The Respondent Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and issued Demand Notice dt.2|.Ol.2O22, u/s.13(2) followed by possession Notice dt. 1O.O 5.2022 u/s. 13(4) of the said Act. The Applicant filed copies of the said notices along with the sA and therefore it cannot be said that the said notices were not served on him. However, it is the contention of the Appricant that the possession Notice dt.7O.O5.2O22 was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two daily newspapers by the Respondent Bank as contemplated u/r. 8(1) & (2) of the securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent Bank, despite service of notices, did not choose to appear before this Tribunar to controvert the contentions raised by the Applicant by fi1ing its Reply statement along with material documents. In the absence any material proof for compliance of Rule B(1) & (2) of the Rules, 2002, by the Respondent Bank, I am constrained to hold that the possession Notice dt. 10.05.2002, is bad under law and is liable to be set_aside. So, this point is answered in favour of the Applicant.

¶25

Point No.lll)t

¶26

In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the possession Notice dt. 10. O5.2O22, issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.t3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, in respect of the application schedule property. No order as to costs.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶28

?;::':::|;;Y3&X'3ffif3,Y.;!JtrTii!f.,^{bs him, coftected, signed andpronouncedbs me in} the own

¶29

rc. c"rrc*fi6j PRESIDING OI.r.ICER

¶30

,,::,:W

Bussa Veeresham v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bussa Veeresham v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Construction Co. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nihal Projects and Ors.

Vijay Kumar versus Union Bank of India

Avai Kumar versus Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Shree Rvs Contractor

Icici Bank Limited versus Nasir Khan