Allowed

M S Aamir Motor v. Bank of Baroda

DRT12 May 2023SA/519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal quashed the Demand Notice and Symbolic Possession Notice issued by the bank for being defective. The court held the bank failed to specify the exact outstanding amount in the demand notice and the possession notice contained conflicting dates. Proceedings were set aside, with liberty granted to the bank to restart proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Demand Notice dated 28.04.2022, the Symbolic Possession Notice dated 08.08.2022, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the applicant.

M S Aamir Motor versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 519/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No. 519/2022

¶5

M/s Aamir Motor Through It’s Proprietor Aamir

¶6

………Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Bank of Baroda Through Authorized Officer Address Gopali Chowk, Tapukara Branch Tapukara Alwar.

¶9

2. Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda Address Gopali Chowk, Tapukara Branch Tapukara Alwar.

¶10

..….. Respondent

¶11

Present:

¶12

Sh. Pramod Kumar , Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Sh. R N Vijay, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶13

(Final Order)

¶14

(12.05.2023)

¶15

This SA was filed on 20.08.2022 and two main grounds including others are required to be considered while passing final order:-

¶16

The Demand Notice dated 28.04.2022, is not as per law, as it does not contain details of outstanding amount.

¶17

The date of symbolic possession is not clear from the possession notice dated 08.08.2022 as it contain date of 01.07.2022 also.

¶18

Both the objections were taken by SA applicant in the SA and the arguments were also based upon the said facts. Ground of declaration of account as NPA is also taken by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant during the course of arguments.

¶19

¶20

¶21

Reply to the SA was filed on 16.11.2022 and copy of Demand Notice dated 28.04.2022 and statement of account was also filed.

¶22

So, as discussed here in above, objection with regard to details/bifurcation of outstanding amount in the Demand Notice dated 28.04.2022, is to be decided and as per Demand Notice dated 28.04.2022, following figure, is claimed as outstanding:-

¶23

Outstanding as on 25.04.2022 Rs. 19,99,703.86 + unapplied interest + unserved interest and other applicable charges

¶24

As per statement of account, so filed at Annexure R/3, it is clear that an amount of Rs. 19,99,703.86 is credit balance as on 27.01.2022 (page no. 129 of reply) and similar is the figure as on 25.04.2022, so as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, the bank was required to give detail of total outstanding amount and the demand is not crystallized or clarified because the bank, itself is not clear about the amount of unapplied interest + unserved interest & other applicable charges. I am also of the view that if the demand notice was issued on 28.04.2022, then the Authorized Officer, could have clarified total outstanding amount due as on 28.04.2022 or on 25.04.2022 and the quantum of unapplied interest + unserved interest could have been finally decided, it is also important to mention here that in the light of provision contained in Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act of 2002, the bank being secured creditor, was duty bound to inform exact outstanding amount on the date of either declaration of account as NPA or on the date of issuance of Demand Notice and a defaulter cannot be kept in dark or cannot be kept unaware with the fact that in fact how much amount is required to be deposited by him as outstanding amount, due as on date on either declaration of the account as NPA or on the date of issuance of the demand notice.

¶25

¶26

¶27

From the above said discussion as well as from the perusal of demand notice dated 28.04.2022, it is clear that the demand notice do not have details of outstanding amount, therefore same is required to be quashed and set aside and in the light of above said observations further actions taken by the Respondent Bank are also required to be quashed and set aside.

¶28

The symbolic possession notice (Annexure-2) was issued on 08.08.2022 and in Para 2, it is mentioned that the Authorized Officer of the Respondent Bank took possession of the property on 01.07.2022.

¶29

From the said possession notice the exact date of taking symbolic possession, is not clear because in the notice date of taking symbolic possession is mentioned as 01.07.2022, whereas the possession notice was issued on 08.08.2022 and it was pasted on 08.08.2022 but later stage, therefore the possession notice dated 08.08.2022 also requires to be quashed and set aside because the same have two dates of taking symbolic possession of the subject mortgaged property.

¶30

Accordingly the demand notice as well as possession notice are quashed and set aside and therefore all the proceedings taken by the Respondent Bank stands quashed and set aside.

¶31

SA stands disposed of as allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be credited into the account of SA applicant within a weeks time from today.

¶32

It is needless to say that the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed ahead for taking actions under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 and the SA applicant is also at liberty to take necessary steps with regard to deposit of overdue/outstanding amount.

¶33

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶34

M S Aamir Motor v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Aamir Motor v. Bank of Baroda

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

Mr Prabhati Lal Jangoo versus Bank of India

M S Shiv Bharat Stone Crusher versus Bank of India

Rakesh Kumar Koli versus Dmi Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Soma Devi versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

Vimla Devi Sharma versus Bank of Baroda

Shri Bhupendra Singh Tomar versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.