Allowed

Pavana N Rao v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

DRT10 Apr 2023SA/346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application in the absence of objections from the concerned ARC, despite providing sufficient opportunities, and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed; interim order, if any, vacated; pending IA's disposed of in terms of the order.

Pavana N Rao versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 10^th Day of April, 2023

¶3

Present: SMT. S. V. GOWRAMMA Hon`ble Presiding Officer

¶4

SA.No.346/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Mr. Pavana N Rao W/o Late Nataraj Janardhan Rao No.1, Hair Om Apartments, Ground floor, Opp. Cottage Hospital Silvassa, Union Territory of Dadra, and Nagar Haveli - 396230. ...Applicant

¶7

And:

¶8

The Authorized Officer Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd No.55-56, 5^th Floor, Free Press House Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.

¶9

The Authorized Officer New Krishna Gowda Saraswath Co-operative Bank Ltd Anugraha Complex, Opp North School, corporation Bank Road Badugupte, Udupi. ... Respondents

¶10

Counsels on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. E. Devaraju Respondent No.1 : Indilegal Respondent No.2 : Exparte

2 SA.No.346/2022

ORDER ON SA:

The present Securitization Application is filed under

¶16

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 taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest [Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the ‘Rules’ 2002].

¶17

The present SA is filed on 20.07.2022 to set aside the Possession notice dated 13.06.2022. The applicant has availed credit facilities from the Respondent ARC. Due to default in repayment towards the loan account, the respondent ARC has initiated measures under SARFAESI Act.

¶18

The applicant is borrower/guarantor who has filed present SA challenging the Possession notice dated 13.06.2022 and has taken the notice on SA as directed by this Tribunal.

¶19

Further the Respondent No.1 counsel come on record and has filed the vakalath for the Respondent ARC on 16.08.2022. After filing of vakalath of Respondent No.1, no objections have seen to be filed. The Respondent No.2 placed exparte vide proceedings dated 18.10.2022.

¶20

The record of proceedings reflects that there was no representation for the Respondent ARC on 21.12.2022 and given sufficient opportunities to file objections. Again on 02.02.2023 the

¶21

3 SA.No.346/2022

¶22

Tribunal gave last opportunity to file objection and status quo was granted in respect to the measures challenged in the SA. However, objections are not seen to be filed even as on today. Inspite of sufficient opportunities the Respondent ARC has not come forward to counter the averments of the applicant in the SA.

¶23

The Respondent ARC being the secured creditor is bound to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter with regard to the measures initiated by the Respondent ARC under the Act. Though the Respondent ARC was served with the notice and case papers, has not filed the objections and has failed to refute the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA which stands un-countered.

¶24

The Tribunal under Sec.17 is to adjudicate whether the bank/secured creditor has taken measures under the Act by following the procedures as mandated/contemplated. In absence of the ARCrefuting contentions of the applicant with supporting documents, the Tribunal is unable to ascertain whether secured creditor has initiated the measures as per the Act and Rules. The Tribunal under Sec 17(5) of the Act is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the dated of the application and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of application.

¶25

Accordingly, SA.No.346/2022 stands allowed leaving open all legal contentions in the SA. Interim order granted if any stands vacated. Any

¶26

4 SA.No.346/2022

¶27

pending IA’s, if any are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to

¶28

costs.

¶29

(Dictated to the Stenographer (BL), after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order is passed on this day 10^th April, 2023)

¶30

Sd/PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-2, BENGALURU

Pavana N Rao v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavana N Rao v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. 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

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus Sri Sanjib Changmai

Uco Bank versus M/s a B Paper

Palakurthy SAtaiah versus State Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S a K Sales

Bank of India versus M/s Balaji Traders and others

Indian Bank versus M/S Avenir Eco Projects Pvt. Ltd.