Allowed

Hiline Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Jul 2023SA/348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debtor filed Securitization Application challenging a Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 due to alleged procedural irregularities and lack of proper service of Demand Notice as per Section 13(2) and Rule 8. Tribunal allowed the application ex-parte, quashing the possession notice for violation of mandatory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed; Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 set aside.

Hiline Networks India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICFR

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.34A OF 2022

¶5

M/s. Hiline Networks hdia pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Directors - Mr. Yellapragada Venkat Laxmi Ravi Kiran S/o Y. Shankar Rao, Aged: About 49 years Occ: Business, situated at #l-11-11C Bhavani Colony, Rajendra Nagar Hydera bad-500030.

¶6

Versus State Bank of India Represented by its Authorised Officer Sl4E Centre, Situated at Patny Centre Secunderabad-500003.

¶7

.......Appticant.

¶8

......Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent Bank

¶10

Mr. D. Raghavulu. Ex-pafte.

¶11

.:ORDER:.

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant uls. 77 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiat

¶13

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the Possession Notice dated lO.LO.2OZ2 issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which was published on 74.10.2022 on the ground that the Respondent Bank has failed to serve the said^possession Notice and Demand Notice on the

¶14

ory^*

¶15

SA.No.348/2022

¶16

applicant as contemplated u/r 8(1)^and 8(2),^{instead,copies of} the same were handed over to^{him during his negotiationsfor} regularisation of Ioan account by accepting the^overdue instalments.

¶17

In spite of service of notice, the Respondent Bank^remained absent. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank^{was set ex-parte on} 75.02.2023.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

¶19

According to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant, due to his ill health and consequential loss in business operations applicant could not deposit some ElvlIs as^per agreement. Therefore, applicant approached respondent bank for ihe purpose of regularisatlon of loan account by accepting the overdue instalments. But without considering the applicant's request, the respondent bank proceeded with issuance of impugned^possession notice. The Respondent Bank has not served the Possession Notice issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the Applicant as contemplated under Rule 8(1), or affixed on the secured asset or published in two leading newspapers as per Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The respondent did not comply the provisions of section 13(2) in serving the mandatory demand notice before taking recourse to section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. As such the action taken by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property is liable to set-aside.

¶20

As stated supra, the Respondent Bank remained ex-parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to the following of due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and ,4w.."u t''"'(/

¶21

SA.No.348/2022

¶22

¶23

the Rules made thereunder while enforcing the security interest over the application schedule property by the Respondent Bank, the present Securitisation Application has to be allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dated t0.L0.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the application schedule property.

¶24

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice 10.10.2022 issued u/s.L3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property. Consequently interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶26

(Dictated to the Private Secretary, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12k day of luly, 2023),

¶27

/9,t, HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hiline Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiline Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. State 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

Ms Tara Maa Enterprise versus Bank of Baroda

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Chand Ansari and Others

Idbi Bank versus M/s Md. Rushi Kamal and others

Bishnu Priya Panda versus Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s Mahfuz Construction and Others

Hdfc Bank versus M/s Jaiswal Enterprises and Others