The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appellant's Securitization Application challenging an ex-parte Section 14 order passed by a Civil Judge. The court found that mandatory demand and possession notices were validly issued and the order was unchallengeable.
The Securitization Application No.6/2022 is dismissed. Any interim order granted is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 6TH Day of April 2023,
Present: SMT. S. V. GOWRAMMA Hon`ble Presiding Officer
SA.No.6/2022
BETWEEN:
Mrs. Asha G. Aged about 35 years, W/o S.R.Chandrashekar Maruthi Krupa, 2nd cross, panduranga nagar, Chikpet, Tumkur.
…APPLICANT
AND:
M/s. Tumkur Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank Ltd., Admin office: Dr. S.Radhakrishna Road, S.S Puram, Tumkur-572 102.
…RESPONDENT
Counsels on record/appeared for:
Applicants : Sri. E.Devaraj. Respondent No.1 : Sri. K.V.Lokesh
:ORDER ON SA.No.6/2022:
The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under
sub section[1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure
2
SA.No.6/2022
taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].
is a borrower and mortgagor had approached the bank and availed financial assistance to an extent of Rs.1,22,02,896/(Rupees one crore twenty two lakh two thousand eight hundred and ninety six only) by mortgaging the scheduled property in favor of the respondent bank. The applicant was prompt in repayment and have paid more than Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh only). However, the bank without deducting the repayment made initiated recovery proceedings.
without serving the S.13[2] demand notice and S.13[4] possession notice, had approached the Addl. Senior Civil Judge
3
SA.No.6/2022
and CJM, Tumkur court by filing an application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an ex-parte order dated 04.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.21/2021 by suppressing all the facts.
The copy of the same is produced at Annexure A1.
present application is not at all entitled for any of the relief/s sought. The applicant has not come with clean hands and they have intentionally suppressed the true material facts with the intention of misleading this Tribunal.
4
SA.No.6/2022
5
SA.No.6/2022
made any payment in respect of the loan facility. Further the respondent bank has taken the symbolic possession of the scheduled property under S.13[4] on 14.08.2020 and the same
has been published in two leading news papers one in English and one in kannada on 19.08.2020. the copy of the demand notice,
Heard the submission of both the counsels and
perused the records
loan of Rs.1,07,00,000/- (Rupees One crore seven lakh only). However it is seen from the S.13[2] demand notice that the applicant has had availed 5 credit facilities total aggregated to Rs.1,22,02,896 Rupees one crore twenty two lakh two thousand eight hundred and ninety six only) and has created security interest in favor of the respondent bank by way of Hypothecation of movable properties/ mortgage of immovable properties by executing necessary documents. mortgaged
6
SA.No.6/2022
(hypothecated) the scheduled property towards the credit facility.
in the repayment however he had made a repayment of Rs. Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh only) towards the credit facilities.
7
SA.No.6/2022
demand notice and S.13[4] possession notice would not sustain. In fact the applicant herself has admitted in para f of page 11 that the demand has been issued by the bank.
8
SA.No.6/2022
by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority”.
S.14 application or in the affidavit the present SA fails.
Accordingly, I pass the following,
ORDER
The present SA.No.6/2022 stands dismissed. Interim Order granted if any stands vacated. Pending IA/s if any
are disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer (Lc), after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order is passed on this day 6st April 2023)
Sd/-
PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-2,
BENGALURU
APPENDIX
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT
| Sl | Particulars | Annexure |
|---|---|---|
| No. | ||
| 1 | Order under section 14 of the Act | A-1 |
| 2 | Application under S.14 of he Act |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE
RESPONDENT
| Sl | Particulars | Annexure |
|---|---|---|
| No. | ||
| 1 | Copy of the Demand notice dated 19.11.2019, | R1 |
9
SA.No.6/2022
RPAD receipt and delivery acknowledgement 2 Copy of the possession notice dated 14.08.2020, R2 and paper publication
Sd/PRESIDINGOFFICER DRT-2, BENGALURU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application challenging Section 14 order stands dismissed for failure to establish illegality.
Whether the bar under Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act prevents questioning the Magistrate's order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Asha G.
M/s. Tumkur Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank Ltd.
S. V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
