Dismissed

Venu Akula v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT26 May 2023SA/127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Securitization Application challenged the legality of a 13(4) possession notice issued by the respondent bank, arguing violation of RBI Resolution Framework 2.0 regarding moratorium and NPA classification. The Tribunal found no merit in the claims and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; possession notice was upheld; interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Venu Akula versus PNB Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 26THDAY OF MAY. 2023}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM.L.LB.(HONs'),.4.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization APplication^{No.L27OF 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr.Venu Akula Age:44, Occ: Business R/o Flat No.618, Sundaram^Building Rama Raja Nagar.^Suchitra Ranga ReddY Dist'500067

¶7

Mr.Tunki Raghavendra^Rao S/o Narender^Rao Occ: Business R/o H.No.5-64,^{Adarsh Nagar} Lingampally, SerilingamPallY Hyderabad. Telangana

¶8

Venagro Nutri^{FoodsPrivate Limited} Plot No.52, Aparna^Palmcrove Kompally, Medchal,^HYderabad Telangana Rep by its Director Venu^Akula

¶9

.......APPlicants.

¶10

Versus

¶11

PNB Housing Finance^Limited BV Raju Bhavan,^{4th Floor} 8-2-269/4/C&D Near Sagar Society,^{Banjara Hills} Hyderabad-500034

¶12

.....,.Resqondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants^{:Mr.Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri} Counsel for Respondent^{:Mr. Lankalagannadham} '$*

2of16

SA No.72712022

-:ORDER:-

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter^,.the Act,, for short) to declare the possession notice dated 26.04.2022 issued by the respondent against the SA schedule properties under Sec.13(4) of the Act r/w Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rutes, 2002,, for short) as arbitrary, illegal and non-est in law, to set aside the possession notice and consequentially to restore possession; and for direction to respondent to declare the loan account as standard account.

¶18

The averments of the application, briefly, are that;

¶19

a) the applicant availed secured loan of Rs.6.25 crores from the respondent for its Popcorn business. It paid EMI5 prompuy till March 2020. With the onset of Covid-19, the business very badly affected. The applicant applied for restructuring of loan as^per Circular 1.0 issued by the Central Government through Reserve Eank of India (RBI) and the respondent granted EMI holiday till September 2021. Accordingty the EMI should commence from October 2021 on account of restructuring of loan account. The RBI again issued Circular 2.0 dated 05.05.2021 granting liberty to the business entities/individuals for further extension of restructuring. In terms of liberty, the applicant again made an application dated 03.06.2021 for further restructuring of account. As advised by respondent, the KYC documents were also submitted by e-mail dated 07.07.2027 and reminded for taking action on restructuring from time to time but in vain. Before end of time granted 71r*rv-^ u

¶20

/'/'<'.*x''

¶21

3 of 16

¶22

5A No.727 12022

¶23

under Circular 1.0, as a^{last resort, the applicantsubmltted} onllne application on 21.09.2021^{to which the respondent} responded on 28.09.2021 and^{asked to submit all relevant} documents. To the utter^{shock of the applicant, the proposal} under Circular 2.0^{was reiected by respondenton 05.10 2021} i.e., four months after^{submitting an applicatlon.Vide letter} dated 19.11.2021, the^{applicant questioned grant of only 9} months instead of 24^{months as recommendedbY K.V'} Kamath Committee and^{without application ofwindow} provided under RBI Clrcular for extension^{of residual moratoria} already^granted under^{Circular1 0. Had the resolutionplan} applied, the applicant^{would have got EMI holiday till} December ZO23 and^{fresh EMI would start from January2024'} The respondent also^{failed to answer communicatewithin 30} days of application as^{per Clause8 of the RBI Circular. Since} there was no response from^{respondentto complaintdated} 28.72.2027 raised under^{Clause 10(2)(a) of Reserve Bank of} Integrated Ombudsman Scheme,^{2021, the applicant} escalated the complalnt to^{BankingOmbudsmanon} 03.02.2022 to which reply^{was issued on 77 .02,2022 stating} that the complaint was not under^{its purview and that the} complaint was forwarded to^{National HousingBank.}

¶24

b) Whlle the complaint was^{pending,the respondentclassified} the loan account as NPA and^issued demand^noticedated 20.0L.2022 under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 whlch} was recelved by the applicant on 07.02.2022. The^applicant issued reply under Sec.13(3A) reiterating the contents^of complaint already raised. Then the^{respondentissuedreply to} the complaint made under Clause 10(2)(a)^{which was received} by the appllcant on 06.04.2022. ]n the^reply the^resp ondent t,-ryi*

¶25

40f16

¶26

SA No.t27 12022

¶27

wrongly stated that the report of K.V. Kamath Committeewas not being implemented whereas furthera nce to K.V. Kamath Committee report, the RBI issued Resolution Framework 2.0 extending restructuring time to 24 months.Challenging the Sec.13(2) notice the applicant filed Wp No.2LO46 of 2022 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court observing that the WP was not maintainable as it had not reached Sec.13(4) stage and that the applicant would approach the jurisdictional DRT u/s 17 of the Act. The respondent also issued possession notice dated 26.04.2022 u/s 13(4) of the Act r/w Rute 8(1) of the Rules and affixed on the secured asset. Aggrieved, hence th is a pplication.

¶28

The respondent adopted the counter fited in IA No.42S/2022 as reply statement. While denying the adverse averments made in the application, it is submitted that;-

¶29

a) The respondent is a Non-Banking Financial Company incorporated under the Companies Act and registered with National Housing Company under Sec.29A of the National Housing Company Act, 1987 and also a declared Financial Institution for the purpose of SARFAESI Act, 2002. The applicants 1to 3 approached the respondent for loan facilities for business and considering the request a loan of Rs.6,32,61,882/- was sanctioned. They executed loan documents on 30.04.2019, the 2"d applicant created security interest over the SA schedule properties in respect of said loan by way of executing registered mortgage deed. Initially, moratorium was given for six months from March to August, 2020. They again requested for restructuring of loan under Covid-19 Stress Resolution Framework. Considering the same, lV..* ,/^.-\ii"

¶30

5of16

¶31

SA No.t27 12022

¶32

the respondent sanctioned moratorium upto^{September,2021} and accordingly they should repay the^{loan amountin 200} EMIS commencing from October, 2021 and^{ln acceptance} thereof, the applicants executed necessary^documents' However, they failed to^payEMIS from October,^{2021 to} January, 2022 and hence the^{loan account had to be classified} as NPA on 71.01.2022 as^per RBI^{guidelines and Securitization} measures were commenced by issuing sec.13(2)^demand notice calling upon the applicants to^pay outstanding^duesof Rs.7,86,38,L74.20^ps as on 20.01.2022 within 60^{days from} the date of notice. The applicants raised^{objectionsto the} demand notice on 29.03.2022 stating^{that the loan account} was classified as NPA and Securitization^measureswere initlated illegally and also to extend^{moratoriumfor 12 more} months. The respondent issued reply to the objections^on 07.O4.zOzZ rejecting the allegations and^{the request for} further moratorium. Thereafter,^as no^{payment was madeas} per demand notice, the respondent issued Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 26.04.2022, affixed the same^{on the} schedule property and^published in two^{leading newspapers} viz., Business Standard and Nava Telangana,^{English and} Telu gu newspapers respectively, on 30.04.7022.

¶33

b) The respondent issued^reply on^{30.03.2022 to the request of} the applicants dated 28.12.2021 for^{extension of moratorlum} period for 12 months more. The complaint of the applicants about moratorium was to be disposed^bythe Ombudsman/Nationa I Housing Bank.^{lYere flling an appeal} cannot be treated as stay to^{initiate anymeasures.Moreover,} the grievance of applicants about^{implementationof}

5oft5

sA No.727 12022

Resolution Framework cannot be entertained by this Tribunal for lack of^{jurisdiction.}

¶38

c) while disposing of the wp No.25491 ot 2022, the Hon,ble High Court granted interim stay till disposal of IA No.425 of ZO22 pending in SA No.727/2022. It was also observed that in case petitioners do not co-operate it is open for the presiding Officer to pass appropriate orders.

¶39

d) The respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act while issuing Sec.13(2) and 13(4) notice and hence, the SA may be dismissed.

¶40

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the written arguments and the material documents filed by both parties.

¶41

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that, as per Sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the toan account shoutd be declared as Non-performing Asset in accordance with guidelines and Circulars issued by the RBI. The RBI issued Resolution Frame Work ("RF" for short) 1.0 and 2.0 in view of Covid-19 pandemic granting moratorium period upto 24 months which was not granted. The rejection of restructuring of loan is against para 22 r/w para 5 of the RF 2.0. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Associates vs. Puniab & Sin.t Bank and othets (2OO9 A SCC 2S7l wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to judgment in centht Bank of India vs. Ravindra case [(2OO2) I sCC 367] held that the circulars issued by the RBI from time to time are binding on those who fall within the net of such directives like the respondent herein. However, according to learned counsel, the . Ct*q. tz'>\tr'

/ i/

7ofto

SA No.l27 12022

respondent failed to follow the RBI Circulars and therefore,^the very classification of loan account of applicants as^{NPA is in} vlolation of sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It^{is further} contended that the respondent also failed to^followpara I^{of the} RF 2.0 in communication the decision within 30^{daysfrom the} date of application for restructuring. The^{restructuring was} rejected by an inordinately belated^rePly though^{the applicant} was eligible as^per Circular supra.^{Learnedcounsel relied upon} the recent^judgement of the^{Hon'bleCalcutta High Courtin orive} Tree Retait Private Limited and Another vs.^{South IndianBank} Limited and Another [2023 SCC onLine 743] with^emphasison paragraphs 18 to 24. In the clted^judgement, the Hon'ble High Court directed the creditor bank to^{grant restructuringin} accordance with RF 2.0 dated 05.05.2021^{to the borrower subject} to fulfilling all the conditlons^contained by the^{petitionerno1} thereln. According to learned counsel, the applicants^{herein also} fulfil all conditions of the RF 2.0. The^{Hon'ble Supreme Court} directed ln the case of small scale Industrial^{Manufacturers} Association (Regd.) vs, ltnion of India and others in^WP(C) No.476 of 2o2o decided on 23.03,2027 that there shall^{not be} any charge of interest on interest/compound^{interest/penal} interest for the perlod during moratorium and any^amount already recovered under the same^{head, such interest shall be} given credit to the loan account of borrowers. The Tribunal has the^power to direct the respondent to strictly^follow the^{RF 2.0 in} the case of a^pplicants.

¶46

The learned counsel would further submit that once the^NPAitself is illegal, all further^proceedings under the SARFAESI Act^also become null and void. In support of this argument, the^learned counsel^placed reliance on the iudgment of the learned^DRT, / ',/ 'fu7't-/-t>,

¶47

8of16

¶48

saNo.727l2O22

¶49

Ahmedabad order in SA No.26/2074 in the case of Ashmita Papers Pvt Ltd vs. State Bank of India. The learned counsel further argues that in the reply to the objections under Sec.13(3A), the respondent falsely stated that K.V. Kamath Committee report was not under implementation. As per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/s SravanDall Mill Pvt, Ltd vs, Central Bank of India, the secured creditor is bound to apply mind and inform borrower the reasons for classification of loan account as NPA and a mere statement cannot be said as fulfilment of obligation under Secs.13(2) and 13(3A). In the instant case, the respondent failed to give a reasoned reply and instead gave false reply about implementation of report of K.V. Kamath Committee. The loan account oF applicants was 'standard account' in view of RF 2.0 and hence declaration of loan account as NPA and consequential Securitization measures are illegal.

¶50

While referring to the material documents and^judgements filed by applicants in support of his submissions, the learned counsel prays to allow the SA in the interest of justice.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating the submissions made in the reply statement further adds that the applicants though initially paid EMIs, committed default later. At their request, the moratorium period of six(6) months was granted from March to August, 2020 as per RBI guidelines. Again, considering applicants' request, the respondent restructured the loan vide sanction letter dated 28.12.2020 under Covid-19 stress related RF 1.0 according to which, the restructured loan was repayable in 200 EMIs @ Rs.8,65,022l- by

¶52

9of16

¶53

SANo.t27l2O22

¶54

10th of every month commencing from October, 2Q2L. However, in breach of the agreed to the terms and conditions, the applicants failed to pay EMIs from October, 2O2l to January, 2022. When the applicants made a request through e-mail to extend moratorium by another 12 months, the respondent vide reply dated 30.03.2022 rejected the request for the reasons that it involves other policies of the respondent which include repayment capacity of the petitioners, value of securities etc. The respondent strictly adheres to the rules framed by the RBI and National Banking House in serving the borrowers. The applicants cannot seek wrong benefit out of Covid-19 stress resolution plans.

¶55

The learned cousin for respondent further submits that as^per Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the Debts Recovery Tribunals shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor^for enforcement of security are in accordance with the^{provisions of} this Act and the rules made thereunder. The definition^{of non-} performing asset as per Sec.2(o) is; as asset or account of a borrower, which has been classified by a^bank or^financial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset,

¶56

(a) In case such bank or financial institution is administered^or regulated by any authority or body established,^{constituted or} appointed by any law for the time being^{in force, in accordance} with the directions or^guidelines relating assets^{classifications} issued by such authority or bodv;

¶57

(b) In any other case, in accordance with the directions or^guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the^{Reserve Bank;"}

¶58

According to learned counsel, the Tribunal can^{adjudicatethe} application under Sec.17 by considering^{whetherSec' 13(4)} Aw*

¶59

10 of 16

¶60

sANo.!2712022

¶61

measures initlated by the secured creditor in enforcing the security are in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and^Rules made thereunder. Reliance is^placed by the learned counsel on the^judgment of the Hon'ble Madras Court in Lakshmi Shankar Mills O^{Ltd vs. TheAuthorized Officer/Chief Manager,IndianBank} [2008⁰ AIR (Mad) .l8lJ whereby and whereunder after a detailed discussion it was held that the^purpose of an application under Section 17 is not the determination of the^quantum of claim^per se as the Tribunal is concerned with the issue of the validity of the measures taken by the banks/financial institutions under Section 13(4). The declaration of NPA by secured creditor is done according to RBI Circulars issued from time to time. Therefore, the Tribunal has no^jurisdiction to consider the prayer of applicants with regard to RBI Circular on RF 2.0.

¶62

Learned counsel further submits that the loan account was declared as NPA on 11.01.2022 as per RBI guidelines and as defined under Sec.2(o) of the Act, 2002. Thereafter, respondent issued demand notice dated 20.07.2022 calling upon applicants to pay Rs.7,86,38,174.20 ps. The said notice was published in 'Business Standard' and 'Nava Telangana' English and Telugu daily newspapers. A detailed reply dated 07.04.2022 was issued to objections dated 29.03.2022raised by the applicants to the demand notice whereunder the request for extension of 12 months moratorium was rejected and allegations of NpA were denied. Thus, the respondent complied condition under Sec.13(34) of the Act before issuing Sec.13(4) notice. The possession notice dated 26.04.2022 was issued under sec.13(4) of the Act to the applicants, affixed on secured assets and published in 'Business Standard' and 'Nava Telangana, English

ow$

11of16

SA No.t27 12022

and Telugu daily newspapers on 30.04.2022. The respondent, with this, complied Rutes 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002.

¶67

With the above submissions, learned counsel for respondent sought for dismissal of the SA.

¶68

Now, the points that arise for consideration are;-

¶69

(i) Whether the applicants made out any valid ground for setting aside the possession notice dated 26.04.2022 issued undersec,l3(4)of the SARFAESI Act against the SA schedule properties?

¶70

(ii) To what relieP

¶71

Point No,(i):-

¶72

t4. The undisputed facts are; the applicants along with Mrs.prathima Akula and Mr.Srikanth Sunkey availed loan facility of Rs.6,32,61,882/- from respondent by executing necessary loan documents on 30.04.2019 and created mortgage over the SA schedule properties to secure the loan facilities. The applicants were granted benefit of moratorium from March-2020 to September 2021 as per RBI guidelines. They committed default in payment of EMI from October-2o21.

¶73

The principal contentlon of the applicants is that the account was declared as NPA pending application for extension of moratorium period for another twelve months as per RBI's Resolution Framework 2.0 that was issued to relieve the stress caused on borrowers due to resurgence of Covid-19. Learned counsel says that once the secured creditor failed to follow the RBI^guidelines, the very classification of loan account as NPA is not in terms^of definition in Sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act,^{2002, the} M"o

¶74

L2 of LG

¶75

SA No.L27 12022

¶76

consequential^{measuresfollowed by such illegal classification are} void in law. The allied^{contentionsare that the applicantswere} under eligible category,^{they invoked RF 2'0 before stipulated} date i.e., 30.09.2021,^{that the respondentfailed to respond to} their application within 30^{days whereas it was bound to obey} theRBI^guidelines as laid^{down under cited judgementSardar} Associates vs. Punjab &^{Sind Bank; lhal the respondentfalsely} stated in its reply dated 30.03.2022^{that recommendations of} K.V. Kamath Committee^{were not under implementation.}

¶77

The learned counsel for respondent^{vehementlyopposes} involvement of this Tribunal^{in these issues by stating that as per} Sec.17 of the Act, 2002, the^{DRTs shall only enquirewhether} Sec.13(4) measures are in^{accordancewith the Act and Rulesor} not. He relied on Lakshmi Shankar^{Mills case (supra)wherein} the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that^{the purpose of an} application under Section 17 is not the determination^{of the} quantum of claim per se as the Tribunal is concerned with the issue of the validity of the measures taken by the^{banks/financial} institutions under Sec.13(4). As a matter of fact, the dispute^is not about quantum of debt but non-implementation of^RBI Circular, consequential classification of account as NPA and measures against SA schedule^properties,

¶78

t7. Before adverting to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel as above, let me put the events in a chronological order for convenience and better understanding of the case:

¶79

a.March2020 to Auoust2020	Moratorium grantedas per RBIguidelines
b.06.08.2020	RBI'sCovid-19StressrelatedResolutionFramework1.0
c.06.12.2020	Applicationfor grant of benefit underRF1.0
d.24.12.2020	Respondentissuedrevised sanctionlettergranting moratgfium upto September,2021 *
	N

¶80

13 of 16

¶81

SA No.12712022

¶82

e.05.05.2021	RBI'sCovid-19Stressreffi
r.03.06.2021	Requestforexte 24months
9,^07.O7.202tto 30.09.2021	Submission of requests etc.
h.05.10.2021	Rejectionfor grantofresidual moiStoriumunOeinfZO
i.October-2021	TherevisedEMI shouldcommence-notpatd
j.28.12.202t	complainttorespondentunoe@ IntegratedOmbudsman Schedule 2021
k.03.02.2022/ L7.02.2022	E-mailcomplaintto gankingr@ forwardinq complainttoNationalHousinqBank
l.October-2021to January-2022	. EMInotpaid
m.LO.OL.2O22	DateofNPA
n.20.01.2022	Demandnoticeu/s13(2) ofSARFAESIAct
o.29.03.2022	Objectionsu/s13(34)ofSARFAESIAct
p.07.O4.2O22	Replyto objections
q.26.04.2022	Possessionnoticeu/s13()ofSARFAESIAct

¶83

It is manifest from above record of events, the respondent communicated rejection of request for residual moratorium period at the time of payment of fresh EMI from october, zo2l. The applicants raised complaint before Banking ombudsman which was closed as non-majntainable under clause 10(1Xf) of the Reserve Bank Integrated ombudsman scheme, 2o2L: ,a service not within the regulatory purview of the Reserve Bank,. It is further stated that the closure under the clause is nonappealable and however, the complaint had been forwarded to NHB for necessary action. It is not known whether there is response from NHB.

¶84

Though RBI RF 2.0 circular made the borrowers who availed facility under RF 1.0 ineligible for RF 2.0., permission was granted to lending institutions to use the window to modify earlier moratorium. Admittedly, the applicants availed resolution plan under RF 1.0. Thus, the language in the RBI RF 2.0 circular was not so used making it mandatory to grant residual moratorium of maximum of 24 months. It is pertinent to note that in the Sec.13(3A) letter, the applicants under para N'"B stated

¶85

14 of¹⁶

¶86

sA No.1-:27 12022

¶87

thattheyWerealreadyunderfinancialinstabilitytopayexisting EMI of Rs.6,30,209/-^{and demanding to pay Rs'8'65'022/-as} EMI, after^{completionof EMI Holidaygrantedfor 10 months' was} too harsh.^{Iam concerned,what degree of difficulty would} applicants^{have faced if the respondenthad granted further} moratorium^{and enhanced the EMI'}

¶88

With^{regard to latereplyto request for residualmoratorium'the} respondent^{explained that its Head Officewas not entirely} operational^{due to extended lockdownand it took some time to} obtain requisite^{documentsThis reasonis quite justifiable in} view the Covid-19^{situationthen prevailing'}

¶89

It is^{manifestfrom the aforementioned dates that reply rejecting} the^{proposalfor extended moratorium was received in the month} of October,^{2021. It is not the case that applicantsfailed in} payment of EMI for^{that month alone' They continuously} defaulted in^{payment of EMIs fromOctober 2021onwardsThe} facts of the^{case in Orive TreeRetail Pvt' Ltd' and the present} case are slightly^{varied. The account thereinwas standardas on} 31.03.2021, it^{was classifiedas NPA on 29 'r1-'202L and that the} petitioner thereln dld^{not avall restructuringfacility under RF 1 0'} In the case on^{hand, the applicantswere alreadyallowed} moratorium of^{six months from March-2020 to August, 2020and} thereafter upto^{September,2021 under RF 1'0' Thereafter, they} defaulted in^{payment from October, 2021 to lanuary,2022'As} per Sec.2(o) of the Act, 2002,^{discretion has been conferredon} the bank/FI with^{regard to classificationof loan account of} borrower as^NPA in^{accordance with RBI directivesand the} secured creditor has to^{exercise the discretion prudently.} Accordingly, the^{respondent classifledthe loan accountas NPA. It}

eW*

15 of 16

sA No.tZ7 12022

is pertinent to note that RF 1.0 or RF 2.0 did not Formulate new guidelines for classification of NpA and the applicants also did not point out a sentence from those Circulars showing such directive. The lending institutions are bound to follow the extant RBI guidelines for classification of loan account as NpA. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of applicants that the very classification of loan account as NpA was against the RBI Circulars and not as defined under Sec.2(o) of the Act.

¶94

After classification of loan account as NpA, the respondent issued 13(2) demand notice in which the respondent gave reasons for classifying the loan account as NpA in the demand notice. The secured creditor may indicate the reasons for NpA classification in the demand notice under Sec.13(2). Though it is not made mandatory, by quoting the reason for NpA the application of mind of secured creditor in classifying the account as non-performing asset would transparently be made known to the borrower. In the case on hand, the respondent explained the reasons for classification of account as NpA in Sec.13(2) notice.

¶95

The applicants raised objections to the demand notice under Sec.13(34) of the Act. I have perused both the objections raised by applicants to demand notice and also reply issued by the respondent. The respondent gave reply in detail. Thus, I find no violation of Sec.13(34) of the Act,

¶96

The possession notice dated 26.04.2022 was received by the applicants as admitted in the cause of action column in the application. The same was amxed on secured assets as per copy of photographs and published in English and Tetugu (vernacutar) languages on 30,04.2022 as per copies of M*pubtication filed by the

¶97

16 of 16

¶98

sANo.L27l2o2i

¶99

respondent'^{Thus, the respondentfollowedRues 8(1) and 8(2) of} the Security^{Interest (Enforcement) Rules' 2002 with regard to} possession notice.

¶100

In^{view of the above discussion, I find that the applicantsfailed} to make out^{any validgroundto set aside the possessionnotice} dated 26.04'2022^{issuedunder Sec'13(4) of the Act'2002} against the^{application schedulepropertiesand accordinglythe} SA is liable^{to be dismissed'}

¶101

Point No.(ii):

¶102

In the result,^{SA is dismissed.}

¶103

Consequently,^{InterlocutoryApplicationspending if any' shall} stand disPosed^of.

¶104

No order^{as to costs'}

¶105

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Typed to my dictot.ion^{by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronouncedby me in theopen} court on this^{the 26'hdoyol uoy,2O2i).}

¶106

W* MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Venu Akula v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venu Akula v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Sirajul Hasan Siddiqui

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Sahab Singh

Canara Bank versus M/s Sree Kamakshi Traders Rep by its Prop Sri.R.Rajgopal.K.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Smt. Sunita Sachan.

Ms Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. versus Ms Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Comoany

Mr Sundar versus Canara Bank