Allowed

Nacharam Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

DRT15 Nov 2023SA/228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application filed under Section 17 SARFAESI Act. When the bank remained absent and failed to produce evidence of compliance with Section 13(2) mandates regarding Notice issuance and service, the Tribunal set aside the Demand and Possession Notices and the physical eviction action.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed setting aside Demand Notice u/s 13(2), Possession Notice u/s 13(4), and Eviction action; Respondent bank at liberty to proceed against secured assets afresh.

Nacharam Ramesh versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 5TI,{ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.22A/2022

¶5

Nacharam Ramesh, S/o. Venkata Krishna, Aged about 45 years, Male, Occ: business, R/ o. H. No. 2- 5-4O, Big Bazaar locality, Medak Town, Medak.

¶6

Yerramalli Sudhakar, S/o. Anjarah, Aged about 45 years, Ma1e, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.3-8- 12, Busagadda locality, Medak Town, Medak.

¶7

Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union Bank of India, Branch: Medak, Near Rythubazaar, Opp: GKR Gardens, Medak. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Appticants : Respondent

¶12

Sri Sridhor Tctdakanti. : Ex-parte.

¶13

-:ORDER:.

¶14

¶15

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the action of the Respondent Bank in trying to dispossess the Applicants from Item Nos.1 & 2 properties of application schedule pursuant to the Eviction Notice dt.ol .og.2022, issued by the Advocate commissioner, appointed in cr1.M.p.Nos.436 & 45g of 2022 on the file of Ld. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy and to set-aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent bank u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶16

¶17

The averments made ip the application, in brief, are that, the Appricants availed loan facilities.. from the Respondeqt gr,,k by mortgaging the application schedul"", io develop their busirr""i After availing the loan, the Applicants were regular in paying-the roan ,,.,or',p,t" for some time. But, due to COVID-l9 pandein.ic, they could,-,n,0., ln. Ioan amounts and the I

¶18

SA.No.228/2022

¶19

Applicants by explaining their problems requested the Respondent Bank to grant some time' But, the Respondent Bank classified the loan account as NPA and has proceeded to take physical possession of the application schedule properties through Advocate commissioner, appointed in crl.M.P.Nos.436 & 4s8 of 2022 on the file of Ld. cMM, Ranga Reddy. The Respondent Bank did not serve Demand Notice u/s.13(2) and the possession Notice u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, on the Applicants. The Respondent Bank has also failed to affix the Possession Notice on the application schedule properties. Hence, the SA.

¶20

Despite service of notice, the Respondent Bank did not choose to appear before this Tribunal to contradict the version of the Applicant. The Respondent Bank remained ex_parte.

¶21

Heard arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

¶22

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶23

whether the Applicants have established ,r,y valid grounds for setting aside the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI, including the Notice of Eviction dt.0 r.og.2022, issued by the Advocate commissioner, appointed in crl.M.p.Nos.436 & 4sg of 2022 on the file of Ld. CMM, Ranga Reddy?

¶24

ii) To what reliep

¶25

Point No.(i):_

¶26

6' The Applicants have admitted the fact of availing the loan from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule properties as security' They have also admitted about the default committed by them in repaying the loan amount. However, it is the contention of the Applicants that, the Respondent Balgr+uitfr,oa\qring Demanh Notice .,7".is121 .rra ',i t3(4) f o l lh€'€KESr Act, has proceeded to take :i:.::::'::l::"'*mL3@) physical possessi -. Y.+, \ applrcation schBd?,q1fr^{propertiesthroughAdvocate} commissioner, "pf,6i"t.a^{in crl.M:b.No".4lsr&\458of 2o22on the} file of the Ld' cMM, Ranga ft.,g"4,^{olstliqt0lts Isa&ted s#r,despite service of notice,} the Respondent "W-.di$.^{not choos. ,o,unaR. berore this Tribunar and Iile}

¶27

SA.No.228/2022

¶28

its Reply Statement along with material documents to contradict the version of the Applicants and it remained ex-parte. In the absence of any contra evidence brought on record by the Respondent Bank towards compliance of measures u/s.13(2) and 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, I am constrained to hold that, the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(2) & 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, incruding the action of the Respondent Bank to take physical possession of the application schedule properties vide Eviction Notice dt.o1.og-2022, issued by the Advocate commissioner appointed in crl.M.P.Nos.436 & 45g of 2022, are riable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Applicants.

¶29

Point No.llll:-

¶30

¶31

in the result, the present securitization Application is allowed by setting aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank i.e., Demand Notice, issued u/s.13(2), and possession Notice, issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, including the action of the Respondent bank to take physical possession of the application schedule properties vide Eviction Notice dt.O1.o9.2022, issued by the Advocate commissioner appointed in crl.M.P.Nos.436 & 45g of 2022 a-re hereby set-aside. However, the Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed against the secured assets afresh in accordance with law. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.

¶32

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

¶33

l:;::ff"'r';^,!:il;frnfiiT!,"?;rlifnscribed^{bs him,corrected,signedandpronourtced.by} me in the open court on

¶34

sd/-
(c. coPrcHANDl
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

1 : )ifi' 'rU3
i
.,

¶36

TRUts COPY
,[@
Asst &d-gistrar ,
ARf.f. if YiiE,+.o rr,4 D- L
n)

Nacharam Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nacharam Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Shesharao Rathod

Bank of India versus M/S. Almalik Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Smt Sai Krupa Thummala

K N Bhasker Ji versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstructions

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. M. Kalpana

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Mrs. Vedavarapu Anila