Dismissed

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, v. State Bank of India

DRT17 Jul 2023SA/47/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 seeking to set aside a possession notice. The tribunal held the notice was properly served, affixed, and published as alleged evidence contradicted the applicant's claims, and the guarantor was not a necessary party.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of.

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, versus State Bank of India — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17 THDAY OF JULY, 2O2g PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

SA.No.47 /2C.22

¶3

Yt::^{Mallikarjuna purified Water plant,} Sy.No.2 1 8, Gandhamvarig"J; Village, Nalgonda Mandal and DiJtrici,-i.tu.,guna_50g00 1, Rep. by proprietor Sri Kommanaboina Mallesh, S/o. K. yadaiah, "g:g^{Sg.Vears,R/o.H.No .4_31,} Kondapakagudem Vitt.g.,' N".f.atpally Mandal, Nalgonda, Telangana _ 50g 001.

¶4

Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank of India, -1.p.^{Uy its Autho rized, Officer,} Nalgonda Town Branch_f Sl+S, Nalgonda, Telangana _ 50g 001.

¶7

Respondent.

¶8

Counsel for the R:espondent ,

¶9

Sn f. Sridhar Reddy. Sri V. Raghu.

¶10

.:ORDER:-

¶11

1' 1'his application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 0f thesARFAESI Acr, 2002, chalrenging the possession Notice dt.12.03.2021, issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the application schedure properties. 2. The a'erments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed credit facilir,ies-,frn . rho D^^^-- -, the Respondent Bank and that demanded the annri,ci$ ; ;ffi""J tbifu;.,; r;""..# :, T: application schedu,r.#oo".ri."'t-1fl th. R*;;Yr;:", Ero-r- 1--- r-- r. :::"" :::,^{".,;" ili.ffi il,;ffi I;rlH: T:} :ffi# " cr:ntemplated Bank has not u7 ''' ".ffi^{I3ql:.?&t4roffi:.ft*;ession} "''-+^''K ary Demand $,r$j^-. Notice *.";JI# was arso not;.

¶12

¶13

Sa.No.47/2022

¶14

served on the Applicant and the Possession Notice was also not affixed on the schedule property and was not published in two newspapers as contemplated under Rules g(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement contending that as the Applicant committed default in repaying the ioan amount, the loan account became NPA and Demand Notice dt.0s. 12.2o2o was issued to the Applicant demanding payment of the outstanding dues within 60 days and the said notice was also published in Hans India and velugu newspapers dt.24.12.2020. As the Applicant failed to pay the outstanding within the stipulated time, possession Nor-ice dt.12.03.2o2r was issued to the Applicant and the said possession Notice was affixed on the schedule property and was also published in Hans India and velugu newspapers dt.17.03.2o2t But, the Applicant lailed to redeem the mortgage. The mortgagor of Item No.2 of the schedule property is not a party to the present sA and hence same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶18

Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for

¶19

setting aside the possession Notice dt.12.03.2O2t issued by the

¶20

Respondent Bank in respect of the application schedule properties?

¶21

¶22

for the Applicant and stated supra.

¶23

SA.No.47/2022

¶24

7 ' Along with the Reply Statement, the Respondent Bank has filed its material documents and as per the said documents it is very clear that the Respondent Bank has issued Demand Notice dt.Os. 12.2o2o u/s'13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicant and the said notice was received by the Applicant, which is evident from the signature of the Applicant on the oflice copy of the said Demand Notice. Further, the said Demand Notice was also published by the Respondent Bank in Hans India and Verugu newspapers dt.24.r2.2o2o. As the Applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues within the time stipuiated under the Demand Notice, the Respondent Bank on l2'o3'2o21, issued the Possession Notice to the Applicant and the guarantor/mortgagor viz., sri Maragoni Srisailam. As per the copy of the said Possession Notice filed by the Respondent Bank, the said Possession Notice was received by the Applicant by endorsing his signature. A copy of photograph filed by the Respondent Bank depicts that the said Possession Notice was duly affixed on the schedule property. Further, from the copies of newspaper publications filed by the Respondent Bank makes it clear that the possession Notice was duly published in Hans India and velugu newspapers dt.17.03.2o2r. So, the contentions of the Applicant that the Demand Notice and Possession Notice were not served on him and that the possession Notice was not affixed and published in the newspapers are not tenable. It is pertinent to note that the guarantor/mortgagor of application schedule-2 property is not a party to the present SA. In this regard Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank by rerying on a decision of the Hon'ble High court for the state of Terangana in WP.Nos.5685, 8240 & 1,^{decidedon 26.09.2O2t,} Htgt\R^property is not aggrieved

¶25

submitted that when h**Wner and does not come $ffia, it b e t h e p ri n c i p ar ;f# ; ;,.fi,.$'#f".fr H:l i, .y",.,." i : :; ;il ; ;;; ;.,i H ;f, riu ffi:: jffHH ;J ;:T-.H:I Act' So, the presenttsfoq6|ad for ""pfEffr of necessary party in re spec t o f th e .nnri ""ir;i@rcr,arlf.--ffi4.

¶26

¶27

,0.No.47/2022

¶28

8' So, taking into consideration all the circumstances, I hold that the present SA filed by the Applicant is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Point No.liil:-

¶30

In the result, the present sA is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the Priuate secretarg, transcribed, by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on tltis the l Vn day of Julg, 2023).

¶33

sd/(G. coPrcHANDl Presiding Officer

¶34

,, 17 JlJtm

¶35

.fRUE COPY
**,* lfl;i:1y!!! Y
Df i:,i, ll Yl:,ilf.'3. iiiflO;

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Rajeev Saini

Bank of India versus M /S .S.S. Motors

Union Bank of India versus M S Sowmya Plastics

Bank of India versus Mr. Gali Vijaya Krishna

State Bank of India versus M/S. Karigar Furnitures

State Bank of India versus M S Kavyasri Enterprises