Allowed

Amardeep Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT9 Sept 2022SA/71/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the SARFAESI action initiated by the bank was invalid due to lack of proof regarding the service of the possession notice on the applicant, despite its publication in newspapers.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed and the SARFAESI action based on the alleged possession notice dated 20.01.2022 was quashed.

Amardeep Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

DRT,PATNA

SA 71 of 2022 [J]

DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNALPATNA

¶5

PresidingOfficer: Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶6

SA- 71 of 2022

¶7

Amardeep Kumar MIs Satyadeep Plastic Industries, BanwariTola, SadarGali Khatekan,PatnaCity,Bihar,Patna- 800008.

¶8

........ .Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

ICICI Bank, Kasera Toli, Khaiekalan,Patna City 800008, through its BranchManager.

¶11

ICICI Bank, 1stFloor, CPC Plot No.68,S.K. Puri SahdevMahto Marg, BoringRoad,Patna800001,throughBranchManager.

¶12

ICICI Bank Ltd., LandmarkBuilding,4th Floor, 228A AIC, Bose Road, Kolkata700020,throughAuthorisedOfficer.

¶13

--respondents

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sh. NandKishoreSingh,Advocate

¶16

For the respondents Bank : Ms.Tanushri,Advocate

¶17

Dated: 09.09.2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed LAP - Commercial Property Loan Facility to the tune of Rs.19,60,0001- from the respondent bank. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicant was declared as NPA on 31.01.2021. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 02.06.2021 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of Rs.20,46,757.10. Further possession notice dated 20.01.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. Aggrieved from the possession notice, this SA has been filed by the applicant.

¶21

As alleged by the applicant that the demand notice issued u/s 13 (2) dated 02.06.2021 was received by the applicant on 21.06.2021

~"'-~

._ -

DRT,PATNA

SA 71 of 2022 [J]

and on receipt of the said demand notice, the applicant submitted its reply/representation with the bank on 07.09.2021 but the said representation was not properly disposed of by the bank and merely a letter dated 18.09.2021 was sent by the bank with the averments that we are examining the facts of the matter and we will revert you shortly but the bank didn't replied the representation properly till date. Further, the applicant again sent a letter dated 22.10.2021 to the bank with the offer for reconciliation but this letter was also not replied by the bank. Further, the possession notice dated 20.01.2022 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has not been served to the applicant. The applicant was surprised to see publication in 'Sanmarg' dated 25.1.2022 in which the properties of the applicant were taken constructive possession in exercise of power under section 13(4) of the Act.

¶28

On contrary, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank submits that on default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 31.01.2021. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 02.06.2021 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of RS.20,46,757.1 O. As admitted by the applicant the demand notice was sent to the applicant but the applicant neither represented against the demand notice nor liquidated the dues of the bank within stipulated period. However, a letter dated 07.09.2021 was sent by the applicant beyond the expiry of 60 days as enumerated in section 13(2) requesting 06 months' time to make the payment. The respondent bank duly replied the said letter and sent to the applicant on 18.09.2021. Further possession notice dated 20.01.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and sent to the applicant. The Possession notice was published in two leading newspaper Sanmarg and Morning India on 26.01.2022 and also pasted on secured asset.

¶29

I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶30

It has been alleged that represented made against demand notice

DRT,PATNA

SA 71 of 2022 [J]

has not been replied/disposed by the bank. It is also alleged that the possession notice issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has not been served to the applicant.

¶35

On perusal of records it appears that the demand notice was sent to the applicant through post and as per tracking report the notice was delivered to the applicant on 21.6.2021 but the applicant has sent its representation on 07.09.2021 through post i.e. after expiry of 60 days from date of receipt of the demand notice. Thereafter the bank issued possession notice dated 20.01.2022 but the bank failed to file any proof with regard to service of possession notice upon the applicant. Although the possession notice was published in two newspaper namely Sanmarg and Morning India on 26.01.2022. In such circumstances there is procedural infirmity on the part of respondent that the possession notice has not been served upon the applicant.

¶36

In view of the above discussion, the SARFAESI action against the applicant cannot be held valid for want of proof regarding delivery of possession notice to applicant.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The application SA- 71 of 2022 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act with all pending lAs filed by Amardeep Kumar Mis Satyadeep Plastic Industries, is allowed with cost. The SARFAESI action in pursuance of alleged possession notice dated 20.01.2022 issued by respondents against the applicant, is hereby quashed.

¶39

-/ [KaushalendraYadav] PresidingOfficer. DebtsRecoveryTribunal,Patna

¶40

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open.... . ,~ ~ court on this 09TH Day of September, 2022.

¶41

~ 2022. _c '_ .yv/ [KaushalenaraYadav] 6\ PresidingOfficer DebtsRecoveryTribunal,Patna

Amardeep Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amardeep Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

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

Rajeshbhai Manjibhai Nayani and Anr. versus Cent Bank Home Finance Limited and Ors.

Uco Bank versus Shivam Srivastava

Canara Bank versus M/S Ashish Pal

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Srinivasa Associates

Icici Bank Limited versus Kuldeep

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kakatiya Cotton Industries