Allowed

Mr Thota Murali Krishna v. National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT19 Oct 2023SA/309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No. 309/2022, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act to set aside the respondent bank's possession notice, holding the bank failed to justify its action or produce documents.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the possession notice dated 19.10.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank against the schedule property.

Mr Thota Murali Krishna versus National Trust Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED TI.IIS TFIE^{.I gTH} DAY OF OCTOBER, 2C.23

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.3C9/2C22

¶4

Mr.Thota Murali Krishna, S/o.Thota Sampath Aged about 28 ycars, Occ:Business R/o. I{.No.2-4-86 Ramnagar, Hanamkonda Mandal Warangal Dist. Pin:50600 1

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Tersus

¶7

National Trusl, Ilousing Irinancc Ltd., Warangal IJranch, Situated at liT-13 3r,l Floor,GMR and GS Complex Near Police Grounds, Krishnapuram Hanumakonda,Warangal-50600 1 . Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶10

: D.Raghauulu : Exparte

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1' 'l'he Applicant filed the presenl. Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Sccuritization and Reconstruction ol Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging thc possession Notice dt.19. to.2022 issued by the Respondcnt Ilank against the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and vo,r-dii, .-, .

¶13

,/::e"{f:,,,.,'^i,;,,.r 2. rhe avcr'*".,t, ffib;-rfieiunnri.rffi are thar the applicant has availcd loan *'[q]fi.t -u.rfirg" oi ttrei,Uhcdule property from the Responcir:nt l3an[. ru. 4"$"r6Ljffi'l or- hrs $rr"ir,"".. 'lhereafter, due to ' i^':ji ,-"t l! .,.*le ,fl .,!^{..:"'" ''} "t,,ffiIjr;ir,*i,.;''

¶14

--.:-.. ' I ir 't''' s.....,''r7t -:,.-_-**;...,,-

¶15

sA3O912022

¶16

covid I)andcmic he was unable to pay some instalments. The applicant paid an amount of Rs.S.15 Lakhs till now to the Respondent Bank. All of a sudden, the Respondent bank has issued the Possession Notice dt.19.1o.2022 against the schedule property. But, the Respondent Bank had neither issued Demand Notice nor served Possession Notice nor published the said notices in two leading news papers. I-lence, the SA.

¶17

3' The Respondent [3ank in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several adjournment. Hence the Rcspondcnl. was set exparte.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counscl for the Applicant.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARITABSI Act?

¶21

ii) 'lo what rclicl?

¶22

Potnt No.(i)

¶23

The Applicant filed the present sA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the sARFAESI Act against the application schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARIIAIISI proceedi .?gainst^{the scheduleproperty,} failed to jusrifv their u"tiog{,'$ffiqr*nd produce necessary mal.erial docume.ts ro n{{g"'th;i ** [td,Ytt{'iu strictly followed the provisions o[ SARI.'Atrs/fg;r rno'.,ttrr.,t"" r.6LJa thereunder while proceeding against tne,1e1ur.1T-Btt ffiQ Bank has not evinced any lil^""1T"Eti

¶24

\ rcMr'n

¶25

sA309/2022

¶26

interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has dury complicd with thc mancra.ed provisions of sARFAESI Act and Rules, 2oo2 while proceeding against the secured asset, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶27

Point No.liil:-

¶28

¶29

In the present SA is ailowed by setting aside the possession Notice dt. 19.1o,2022, issued by the Respondent Bank against the application -- schedulc property. Flowever, The Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property in accordance with law. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

8' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dictated to the Priuale secretary, transcri_bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this 77s fg,t, da1; of Octob"er 20'2ii

¶32

.,.r::=-=+
,r'fseu
/ 6- Ti( B<br>-.j:Y
il N
2m It
i: 1$ orl2l
M
Ws

¶33

(c. GoPICHANDI PRESIDING OF'FICER

Mr Thota Murali Krishna v. National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Thota Murali Krishna v. National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons

State Bank of India versus M/S. Surex Auto Works

Smt Kethavath Maji versus Bank of Baroda

City Union Bank Ltd, versus M/S. Sri Venkateswara Motors

State Bank of India versus Sri Madishetty Suresh

State Bank of India versus Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar