The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's auction sale notice, holding the applicant failed to specify procedural violations despite admitting receipt of all statutory notices.
Securitization Application dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.
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. I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2C23
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
SA.No.2 4/2OZz
Smt Ch. Padmavathi, W/o. Basavaiah, Prop: M/s. SR Live Stock Farm, R/o. H.No. 1-885, Sundaraiah Nagar, Madhira, Khammam District.
Applicant.
Versus
- M/s. Canara Bank, H.No. l-7 -7 O, Madhu Complex, Khammam, Telangan a - 2Ol 3 1 3. Rep. by its Authoriozed Officer.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant : Sri Ch. Venkat Raman. Counsel for the Respondent : Sn M.V.K. Visutanadham.
-:ORDER:-
SA.No.24/2022
of loan account, the 1"t Respondent issued Demand Notice dt.o6.og.2o2l claiming an amount of Rs.45,00,380.80ps., as outstanding dues. The Respondent Bank has illegally classified the loan account as NPA and invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In spite of constant deliberations by the Applicant with the Respondent Bank, the Respondent Bank issued Possession Notice dt.23.1I.2021 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by taking possession of the schedule property and thereafter issued Sale Notice dt.05.0 L.2022, followed by publication of Auction Notice dt.25.01.2o22 in the newspapers, for sale of the said property. The whole action of the Respondent Bank is against the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence the sA.
- This application is resisted by the Respondent Bank by filing its Reply Statement. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, after availing the loan of Rs.33,00,000/- by the Applicant from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property, there were no remittances in the loan account and the unit/business of the Applicant was also closed. Since the loan account of the Applicant turned into NpA, the Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dt.o6.og.2o2l u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and as the Applicant did not raise any objections to the said notice, Possession Notice dt.04.01.2022, followed by Sale Notice dt'25'o2.2o22 wete issued. There are no discrepancies in the notices issued by the Respondent Bank and the provisions of the Act and the Rules , 2002, were strictly complied' So, the Respondent Bank prayed for the dismissal of the SA.
SA.No.24/2022
Point No.(i):-
6' There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed credit facility from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property for carrying out business activity of buying and rearing sheep. The Applicant has also admitted that due to uncertainty in the market conditions, her business went into losses and she could not pay the loan instalments regularly. So, classification of the loan account as NpA by the Respondent Bank cannot be found fault. Further, the Applicant has also admitted receipt of Demand Notice dt.o6.og.2o2l, possession Notice dt.23.11.2021 and Auction Sale Notice dt.2s.0l.2o2l, issued by the Respondent Bank. In fact the Applicant filed copies of the said notices along with the SA. The Applicant, except making a vague and bald statement that the action initiated by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property is against the provisions of the sARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, has railed to specifically point out as to what violations or irregularities of the provisions of the said Act and Rules, 2oo2, were committed by the Respondent Bank. So, I do not find any merits in t1.e present SA filed by the Applicant and I hold that the SA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant.
Point No.lli)r
(Dctated to the muarc s""'^":!Y, lranscribed bg him, corrected, signed. and. pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th daA of October, 2023j.
sd/-
(c. coPrcHANDl
- presiding Oflicer
'r't:i' r* UOPY
I rr- 9t$h
"#::',,F#';i'LU')
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant established any valid grounds for setting aside the measures initiated by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act with respect to the application schedule property.
To what relief the applicant was entitled.
Whether the auction sale notice issued by the respondent Bank was procedurally compliant with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Ch. Padmavathi
M/s. Canara Bank
Gummadigopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
