Dismissed

Ms Santosh Trading company v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT7 Sept 2023SA/13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's reference challenging the demand and possession notices issued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, finding no merit in the procedural complaints.

What did the court decide?

The security application and all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed and disposed of.

What the court decided

Ms Santosh Trading company versus Kotak Mahindra Bank… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

sA.No.13,/2c22

¶3

M/s. Santosh Trading Company, Rep. by its Prop: Mr. Juluri Jayashakar, S/o. late J. Ramanadham, aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1 t-29-29812, M.V. Colony, Deshaipet, Warangal, TS.

¶4

Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Office: 8-9-32 to 33/ 1, 1"t Floor, Station Road Chowrastha, Warangal - 506002, Telangana. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶7

Respondent.

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶9

SnT. Sidhar Reddg. Ms. P. S. Sujatha.

¶10

-:ORDER:-

¶11

I. This application is filed by the Appricant u/s. 17 of the .ARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Demand Notice dt.25.l O.2O2l, issued u/s.13(2) and the Possession Notice dt.21.0t.2o22, issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, by the Respondent Bank in respect ol the SA schedule property.

¶12

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Respondent Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the Applicant and the Applicant paid the loan inst4.].1ry^9,,1-," regularly for sometime but, later due to COVID pandemic he.w^"' e to pay the loan instalments.

¶13

So, the Respondent Bank isstred Notice dt.2S. 1 O.2O2t calling

¶14

upon the amount within 60 days. The

¶15

Applicant 13.12.2021 challenging the

¶16

SA.No.13/2022

¶17

declaration of the subject loan account as NPA and to the said objections the Respondent Bank issued reply dt.27.12.2021. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued possession Notice dt.2l.O1.2022 but the same was not served on the Applicant and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property and was also not published in two leading newspapers within 7 days. Hence, the SA.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement contending that, the Applicant, after availing credit facilities, was irregular in repaying the loan amount so, the subject loan account was classilied as NpA and Demand Notice dt.25.i.O.2O2l u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was issued and after receiving the said notice, the Applicant sent his objections vide retter d,t.13.12.2o2r and to the said objections, the Respondent issued reply dt.27.l2.2O2L The Applicant failed to adhere to the loan sanction terms of ECLGS scheme. The possession Notice dt.21.O1.2O22 issued u/s.t3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, was served to the Applicant and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and thereafter, the said notice was pubtished in two leading newspapers as per Rule g(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and thus, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure raid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder in issuing Demand Notice and possession Notice and so, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Heard arguments.

¶20

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant has established any ground for challenging the Demand lvotice dni.*i,\qossession Notice issued by the Respondent _Bq,qli'in resfbit .f't"fib\ schedule property?

¶22

ii) To whar relieP n ? orn ^..-_ !l

¶23

SA.No.13/2022

¶24

Polnt No.(l):-

¶25

The Applicant has not disputed the fact that he has received Demand Notice issued by the Respondent Bank. In fact, the Applicant submitted his objections dt. 13. 12.2021 , to the said Demand Notice and in response to the said objections, the Respondent Bank issued its reply dt.27.12.2021, wherein the Respondent Bank overruled the objections raised by the Applicant as they are not tenable. So, when the Applicant admittedly committed default in repaying the loan amount, the Respondent Bank is entitled to classify the loan account as NPA and issue Demand Notice under the SARFAESI Act. Insofar as the Possession Notice dt.2l .Ol .2022 is concerned, it is the contention ol the Applicant that the said notice was not served on him and the said notice was also not affixed on the schedule property and was not published in two leading newspapers. The Respondent Bank in order to establish that the said Possession Notice was duly served on the Applicant, has filed postal track reports of the Applicant and others, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said notice is delivered to the Applicant. As per the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank, the Possession Notice was duly affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent Bank has also filed copies of paper publication of the Possession Notice dt.21.01.2022 made in Business Line (English) and Nava Telangana (Telugu) newspapers dt.22.O1.2022, from which it is very clear that the Possession Notice was duly published by the Respondent Bank within 7 days. So, as per the documents filed by the Respondent Bank, it is very clear that the Respondent Bank scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while issuing Demand Notice and the Possession Notice in r91ne9-! of the SA schedule property. So, the contentions of the licant that has not received Demand Notice Notice was not affixed in two newspapers has miserably failed to are not tenable aqd I hotF BH;f,i said Demand Notice and

¶26

SA.No.13/2022

¶27

Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank. So, there are no merits in the present SA filed by the Appricant and same is liable to be dismissed. So, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent Bank.

¶28

Point No.lill:-

¶29

In the result, the present securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

B. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

,i#'?;yr::;:; ff;:;f"*;::,,2X;li""""noed bs him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶32

sd/(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

,-fiilsrfh*,
,* -.L 'rt
,. !ili
r--. i
3- at $P i
I :.)
r'7{ .+
'. {ir'tt c, , ':.'
\Rfrr;irrl:
-==:*:'

¶34

"ERUFSO.IY
.3::';H?;1ielJ

Ms Santosh Trading company v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ms Santosh Trading company v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganesh Ginning Factory

Ms Chelpuru Brothers Cloth Sotres versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

M S Chelpuru Brothers Cloth Stores versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Sri Hari Kishan Achhpaliya

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Nikhil Clothing

Indian Bank versus M/S. Buidia Constructions