Dismissed

Mr Sathish S v. Uco Bank

DRT5 Sept 2023SA/556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a Chief Judicial Magistrate order for repossession. The Tribunal upheld the CJM's jurisdiction in a non-metropolitan area, found notices were validly served via publication, and held the 2020 registration rules were prospective and not mandatory for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed; bank is entitled to continue proceedings for recovery of secured debt.

Mr Sathish S versus Uco Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN TIIE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA ATBENGALURU

¶2

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated the 05th day of Septe mber,2023

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 556 OF 2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Sathish S, S/o IGishnaiah, $A,4n Main Road, 2nd Cross, Kottigepalya, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560091 . .. .Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

UCO Bank, 238/35, 9ft Main Road, 3'd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Kamataka-560111, represented by the authorised officer. Defendant

¶9

This Securitisation Application having been heard on 08.02.2023 in the presence of Advocates lWs Sharath Kumar Shetty and Nagesh M.V Patil for the applicant, and Advocates IWs K.R Parashuram and shubhakar for the defendant, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

¶12

The applicant filed the above Securitisation Application (SA) on 09.08.2022 under S.l7(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended from time to time - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - praying to set aside the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore in C Mis No.532l2018 in respect of the schedule immovable property. The applicant is a bonower of a financial assistance availed in the form ofa term loan from UCO bank on 21.10.2015.

¶13

sA 556/2022

¶14

The case set out by the applicant^{in the SA in brief is as follows:- The} applicant availed a term loan of^{188,97,580/-on 21.10.2015from UCo bank after duly} executing the loan security^{documents andcreating equitable mortgage over the schedule} immovable^property by^{deposit of title deedsrelating thereto in favour of UCobank.} The applicant has^{promptlypaid the EMIs to the loan accounttill 01.03.2020.Without} issuing the proper notices^{under the Act, thedefendant approachedcJMBangaloreby} way of c Mis No.532l2018^{and got order dated 13.12.2018. TheCJM has no jurisdiction} to adjudicate the^matter or^{passingthe order. Thesecurity interest has not been registered} with CERSAI and hence the^{bankis not entitled to invokethe provisionsunder the Act.} The applicant has^paid the^{lump sum amountseveraltimes including the amountsas} detailed in^{paragraph 12} of^{the SA and the samewas not appropriatedinto the account.} The applicant has^{paid the entire loan amount to the bank. The applicanthas not received} any notice under 3.13(2)^{or 13(4) of the Actand hence the proceedingsinitiatedby UCO} bank is not in accordance^{with the provisions under the Act. The provisions of the Actare} not applicable to UCO bank^{and henceit is disabledfrom invokingthe provisionsunder} the Act. when this applicant^{had agreed to clear the arrearsin the account,the loan} account of the applicant should^{nothave been declaredas non-performingassetbut the} bank arbitrarily declared the^{account as NPA. At the timeof availingthe loans, the UCO} bank took the signatures of^{this applicant in blank documentsand papers.Thus, the bank} has not acted in accordance^{with the provisions of the Act andthe Rules made thereunder} and hence the SA.

¶15

¶16

The defendant bank though^{its authorisedofficerfiled a statementof} objection contending as below:-^{Theapplicationis not maintainable. Theschedule} immovable property has already^{been sold on 24.02.2021as the applicant had not} complied with the^{provisions under 5.13(8)of the Act. The defendant bankgranteda} ,"- of {88,97,580/- on^{21.10.2015 underUCO home loanscheme.The applicant} ::

¶17

sA 556D022

¶18

availed the same after duly executing the loan security^{documents and creating equitable} mortgage over the schedule immovable Foperty in favour ofthe bank. But the applicant defaulted in repayment and thus the account was declared^as non-performing^asset on 11.05.2017 as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter^the defendant bank issued demand notice on 16.07.2018 and a^possession notice on 11.10.2018 in due compliance of the^provisions under the Act and the Rules^made thereunder. Though the defendant bank filed C Mis No.532l2018^before the CJM^Court, Bangalore, bank could not take^possession of the^{secured asset pursuant} to^{the order} dated 13.12.2018 therein due to^pandemic situation. In^view of^{the criminaloffence} committed by the applicant, the CJM court vide order dated^{26.07.2022in C Mis} No.532l2018 given permission to take re-possession of^{the securedasset. The amount of} t30.50 lakhs and {9.50 lakhs deposited^respectively on^{21.06.2022 and 23.06.2022were} refunded to the applicant as the said^{paymentwas made subsequentto the confirmationof} the sale. On the above contentions,^{the defendantbank prayed for dismissalofthe SA.}

¶19

The applicant produced fifteen documents along^{with the SA. For} convenience, it is referred to as^Annexures Al^{to A15.The defendant bankhasproduced} twenty three documents^{alongwith the statementof objection, whichhas been markedas} Annexures Bl to B23.

¶20

On the appreciation ofthe rival^{contentions,the following issues arisefor} consideration:-

¶21

(D Whether the CJM Court is having no^jurisdiction to^{act uponthe} application filed under S.14 of^{the Act by thedefendantbeforeit as contendedby the} applicant?

¶22

¶23

(iD Whether any of the measures^referred to^{in S.13 of the Act takenby the} defendant bank through its^{authorisedoffrceris not in accordance with the provisionof} the Act and the Rules^{madethereunder as contendedby the applicant?}

¶24

sA 55612022

¶25

(iii) whether the defendant bank^{is not entitledto enforce its security interest}

¶26

over its secured^{assetas contendedby the applicant?}

¶27

(iv) Relief and costs?

¶28

This Tribunal would^{like to make a passiveremarkthat the authorised} officer who obtained^{Annexure Al order da]c,d26.07.2022has notbeenmade a party in} the cause title to^{the SA though the defendant bank is saidto be representedby him. The} right to sue accrues^{under S.17(l) ofthe Act to any person(including borrower)if he is} aggrieved by any^{of the measuresreferredto in sub-section(4) of S.13 of the Acttaken} by the secured^{creditoror his authorisedofficer underthe Act.Thesecuredcreditor is a} creditor holding^{security the realisationof which wouldsatisfr his claim.S.l3(12)of the} Actsaysthattherightofthesecuredcreditorcanbeexercisedbyoneormoreofhis officers^{authorisedin the manner as maybe prescribed.'Authorisedofficer' under R'2(a)} is an officer of^{the securedcreditorwho is competent to exercise the rightsof the secured} creditorasthereinandalsotherightofthecreditorsecuredundertheActtoexercise powerinrespecttoandalsoanyotherrightofthesecuredcreditorconferredunderthe Act. In the^{instantcase,the securedcreditor beinga company' it canonlybe represented} by its^{principal officer. On the showing of the applicant itself' he is aggrievedby} Annexure A1 order^{obtained by the authorisedofficerof the defendant bank,who does} not have an^{independentstatus withoutthe existence of the securedcreditor. Therefore,in} the opinion of^{the Tribunal,the authorised offrcer of the defendant bank shouldalso have} been made^{a pany in the causetitle along withthe bank'}

¶29

¶30

Admittedly,^{the applicant availeda term loan of t88'97'580/-on} 21.10.2015^{from UCO bank after duly executing the loan securitydocumentsand} creating equitable^{mortgageover the scheduleimmovableproperty by deposit of tit'le} deeds relating^{theretoin favour of uco bank.According to the applicant, the defendant} CJM Bangalore^{by way of C MisNo'532/2018and got orderdated} :,r-r"*n",

¶31

sA 556D022

¶32

13.12.2018 but the CJM has no^jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter or^passing the order. But the defendant bank through its authorised oflicer has replied that though the defendant bank frled C Mis No.532l2018 before the CJM Court,^{Bangalore, bank} could not take possession of the secured asset^pursuant to the order dated^13.12.2018 therein due to pandemic situation. It is further submitted that in view of the criminal offence committed by the applicant, the CJM court vide order dated 26.07.2022 in C Mis No.532l2018 given permission to take re-possession ofthe secured asset.

¶33

¶34

Except contending that the CJM Court has no^{jurisdiction,} the applicant has not proved as to how the said Court is having no^jurisdiction to act upon^the application filed under S.14 of the Act by the defendant bank before it. The defendant bank in its statement of objection has stated that the CJM Court^{has jurisdiction} to^pass orders under S.l4 of the Act. The CJM Court in the impugned order dated^13.12.2018 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka in Kaveri Marketine, Bangalore^y Saraswathi Cooperative Bank Ltd [reported in III⁽²⁰¹³⁾ BC 582^(Kar)l hx found that wherever CMM Courts are not there, Chief Judicial Magistrate is^also empowered to deal with S.l4 of the Act and thus the impugned Court^{is having} jurisdiction to entertain the application. Having confirmed the jurisdiction only the CJM Court, Bangalore has acted upon the application^preferred by the defendant bank.^The applicant has not controverted this fact in^issue. He has no^case that the situs^{of the} secured asset is not within the^jurisdiction of^{the said} CJM^{Court. On the showingof the} applicant itself, the secured asset is^situated at Herohalli^{Village,YeshwanthpuraHobli,} Bangalore North Taluk. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention^{raised by the} applicant regarding^jurisdiction of the CJM Court. S.14^{of the Act is very clearand} unambiguous. It states that the Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate or the DistrictMagistrate} can assist the secured creditors in taking^{possessionof the securedassets.TheHon'ble} Supreme Court in Jain and Co v Capital^{First Ltd} [reported^{in 2022 (5) KLT 361} $Ol

¶35

sA 55612022

¶36

has held that the^power vested in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District^{Magistrate is} not by way ofpersona designate.

¶37

ln Solar Systems PvL Ltd v. Oriental Bank o-f Cotnmerce freported in 2006

¶38

KLT I 211 the Hon'ble High Court of^{Keralahas held that Chief JudicialMagistrate} can exercise powers under S.14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

¶39

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 and it reads thus:-

¶40

"A Chief Judicial Magistrale in a non Melropolitan drea stands on the same Iooting as a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and he is vested wilh all^powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrdte in a metropolitan area. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the^petitioner lhat lhe ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is not entitled lo exercise lhe^powers under S.l4 ofthe act is liable to be^rejected."

¶41

It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerula in Rosamma Joseph v State of Kerala freported in 20]4⁽¹⁾ KLT SN 70^(C.No.94)l that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has^jurisdiction to entertain an application tr/S.14 ofthe Act, and it^reads so:-

¶42

"It is true that, in S.l4 it has been mentioned that, the application has to beJiled belore the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Dislrict Magistrate. In the decision repo ed in Arcckiaraj's case^(CDJ 201 3 MHC i970), the Full Bench of the Madras High Court relying on the decisions of Bombay High Court in Induslnd Bank Ltd v The State of Maharashtra^(CDJ 2008 BHC 520) and Arjun Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, Solapur v CJM Solapur Court^{(2009 (2)} DRTC 431^(Bon) held that only Chief Metopolitan Magistrates or District Magistrales are empowered to enkrtain the^{applicationunder} S.l4 of^the SARFAESI Act. Bur, the Division Bench ofthis Coun in Muhammed Ashraf & Another v Union of India & Others⁽²⁰⁰⁸ (4 KLf l) has held that the^povers of^the Chief^{JudicialMqgistrqte in non-metropolitan} area and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan area are one^{andthesame and theapplication} under 5.14 ofthe SARFAESI Act can be entertqined W the ChiefJudicial^{Magistrate in a non-metropolitan} areo,"

¶43

In the above circumstances and in view of the discussion^{as above, the} contention raised by the applicant regarding non-jurisdiction of the CJM Court^{to act} upon the application prefened under S.14 of the Act by the^{defendantbankbefore the} said Court is not sustainable and thus^{rejected. The issueis thus answered against the} applicant.

¶44

¶45

Issue No.(ii):- The core issue relating to the SA^is the^service of^{notices in} terms of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.^{The applicant is aggrieved by the} infirmity occurred in such service only. Admittedly,^{the applicantis the borrowerof a} financial assistance in the form ofterm^{loan of {88,97,580/-availed on 21.10.2015 under}

¶46

n"-" loan scheme from the^defendant bank, the^{due repaymentof which was} ::-O

¶47

sA,5s6t2022

¶48

collaterally secured by the equitable mortgage created over the schedule immovable property. According to the applicant, he had promptly paid the EMIs to the loan account till 01.03.2020 but without issuing the proper notices under the Act, the defendant approached CJM Bangalore by way of C Mis No.532l2018 and got order dated 13.12.2018.It is his specific contention that he had not received any notice under S.13(2) or l3(4) of the Act and hence the proceedings initiated by UCO bank is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act. It is also contended that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to UCO bank and hence it is disabled from invoking the provisions under the Act. Thus, according to the applicant, the bank has not^acted in^accordance with^the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. But, according to the defendant bank, the applicant defaulted in repayment and thus the account was declared as nonperforming asset on 11.05.2017 as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank oflndia and thereafter the defendant bank issued demand notice on 16.07.2018 and a^possession notice on 11.10.2018 in due compliance of the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶49

S.l3 of the Act deals with enforcement of security interest and subsections (2) and (3) thereto specifies the mode of requirement by the^secured creditor to

¶50

the borrower by notice in writing to discharge the debt due, and it reads as below:-

¶51

"(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a seqred creditor under a seatiy agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment lhereoJ^{andhis account in} respect ofsuch debt is classifred by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then the secured tedilor may require the borrower W notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured ueditor within sixry days from the date o/ notice failing which the secured creditor shall^{be entitled to exerciseall} or any of the rights under stb-seaion^(4):

¶52

PROYIDED IhAI -

¶53

(i) the requirenent of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this subsection shall not apply lo a borrower^{u)ho hasraisedfunds throughissue of debt secarities: and}

¶54

(ii) in the event of de/ault, the debenture lrustee shall be entitled to en/orce secari') interest in the same manner as prwided under^{this seclionwith such modificatiotuas mcybe necessaryandin} accordance teith the tems and condilions of security^{documents executed in} fovour^{of thedebenture} trustee,

¶55

¶56

(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shatl give details of the amount^payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended^{to be enforcedbythesec'uredcreditor in the evenlof non-} pqyment ofseqlred debts by the borrower."

¶57

sA 55612022

¶58

¶59

Sub-section (4) of S.13 ofthe Act deals with the recourses could be taken

¶60

by the secured creditor in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within

¶61

the specified period in the notice issued under sub-section (2), and it reads thus:-

¶62

" (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period speciJied in subsection (2), the secured creditor fiqy take recourse to one or more ofthefollowing measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-

¶63

(a) take possession of lhe secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease,^qssignmenl or salefor realising the secure asset;

¶64

A)^{hke over the managemenl of the businessof the botowerincludingthe right to transler by} way of lease, assignmenl or sale for realising lhe secured assel:

¶65

PROYIDED that the right to trsnsfer by way of lease,^qssignment or sqle shqll be exercised only where the substqntial^part of the business oflhe borrower is^held as^{securityforthe debt:}

¶66

PROI4DED FURTHER th(tt where the management of whole of the business or^part of ,he business is severable, the secured creditor shall take^{over themanqgement} of^suchbusiness of the borrower, which is relqlable to the security or lhe debt.

¶67

(c) appoinl^qny person (hereafter referred lo as the manager), to manage the sectred ossels the possession ofwhich has been laken over by the secured creditor;

¶68

(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any^person who has acquired^{anyoflhe secared} assets fiom lhe borrower andfrom whom any money^{is due or mdy become due to theborrower,to} Pqy^lhe sectred creditor, so much ofthe money as is sufrcient^{to pqy lhe seared debt."}

¶69

R.3 of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)} Rules,2002^{(as amended} from

¶70

time to time) - for short 'the Rules' lays down the^{procedureto be followedin taking}

¶71

measure under S.l3 of the Act in^respect of^{demandnotice,whichreadsas under:-}

¶72

"(l) The semice of demand notice^qs referred to in sub-section (2) of S.l^j of ,he Act shall be made by delivering^(including hand delivery) or transmitling^{at the placewhere the borrower or his qgent,} empowered to accept the notice or docanents^{on behalfofthe borrower, actuallyandvoluntarily resides or} carries on business or personally works for^gain, by^{registeredpostwith acknowledgement due, qddtessed} to the borrower or his agent empowered^{to accept lhe serviceor byspeed postorbycourieror by any} other means of lrqnsmission ofdocuments likefax^{messageor electrQnicmail service:}

¶73

PROVTDED that where authorised oficer^{has reqsonto believe that the bonoweror his agentis} avoiding the service of the notice or that for any^{olherreoson,theservice cannot be madeas aforesaid, the} service shall be effected by a/fuing a copy of^{the demandnotice on the outer door or some other} conspicuous part of the house or building in^{whichthe borrower or his agent ordinarilyresidesor carries} on business or^{personallyworks} for^{gainand also by publishing the contentsofthedemandnolicein two} leading newspapers, one in^{vernacalqrlanguage,hqving sufrcient circulalionin that locdlity.}

¶74

(2) llhere the borrower is a body corporqte, the demand notice shall be served^{on the registered} ffice^{or anyo/thebranchesofsuch bodycorporateas specfied undersub-rule(l).}

¶75

(3) Atty other notice in wriling to be served on lhe borrower or^{his agenl by authorisedoficer,} shall be served in the same manner^{as provide in thisrule.}

¶76

(4) lhhere there are more than one boruower, the demand nolice shall be ser-ved on each borrower.

¶77

(5) The denand nolice mqy invite attention of the borrower to^{provisiot s of sub-seaion(8) of}

¶78

S. t 3 ofthe Act, in respect ol time^{qvailable to theborrower,to redeem lhe sectred qssels. "}

¶79

¶80

sA 556/2022

¶81

Sub-rules (1) and (2) of R.8 of the Rules deals with the mode of delivering

¶82

the possession notice and it reads thus:-

¶83

"(1) ll/here the seatred asset is an immovable property, the quthorised ofrcer shall take or cause to be tqken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared ds nearly as possible in AppendixJY to these rules, to the borrower and by alfaing the possession notice on lhe outer door or at such conspicuous place ofthe property.

¶84

(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (l) shall also be published, as soon qs possible bul in any cose not lqter than seven drys lrom the date of laking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernqaiar language hoving sulJicient cirelqtion in that locality, by the authorised ofiicer.

¶85

(2A) All notices under these rules malt olso be served upon the borrower through electronic mode ofservice, in addition to the modes presuibed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) ofrule 8."

¶86

¶87

Annexure 83 is the demand notice dated 16.07.2018 issued under S.13(2) of the Act by the authorised offrcer ofthe defendant bank addressed to the applicant and another calling upon them to discharge the debt amounting to the sum oft89,35,810/- as on 16.07.2018 within sixty days from the date of receipt of such notice. It was stated therein that as the operation of account having been irregular consequent upon the default in repayment committed by them, the bank was constrained to classiff the account as non-performing asset as on 11.05.2017 in accordance with the directives/guidelines relating to asset classifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The attention of the borrowers was invited therein to the provision under sub-section (13) of S.l3 ofthe Act in respect of the transfer of the secured asset. Annexure 83 notice takes care ofthe details of the amount payable by the borrowers by way of schedule A therein; the details of security documents executed by way of schedule B and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of the secured debt by the borrowers by way of schedule C therein. The^photocopies of the^postal receipts appended to Annexure 83 notice show that the said notice was sent to the borrowers by the defendant bank by registered post on 18.07.2018. The applicant has no case that the address shown in Annexure 83 is not correct and different from what he had fumished to the bank. But the defendant bank in the statement of objection has submitted that the said demand notice was retumed un-served. However, Annexure 83 demand notice was

¶88

¶89

sA 556D022

¶90

served on the bonowers by substituted^{service by way of publicationin two leading}

¶91

dailies. Arnexures 84 and B5^{are the copiesof exhactofpublications.}

¶92

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant^{Sinph v. Roman} Catholic^Mission

¶93

Ireported in^{(200)7 SCC 53Ilhas held that publicationin a localpaper other than the} one indicated by the court, but equally^{widelycirculated wouldconstitute sufficient} notice to the defendants, though it would^{be an irregularityin theserviceof summons,}

¶94

and it reads thus:-

¶95

"ln ordinary circumstances, if both lhe local dailies are widely circtlated^{in the areas lhe change} of the name of the local daily fron Dainik^{Bhqsknt to Aacharan would not materiallyaffect the serviceof} notice by way of substituted senice,^{deemedto have been served, and would nol iwalidalelhe efed of} substituted service^just because ,he notice for substituled^{servicehas been publishedin lhe local daily} which is not ordered by the court- lt is inherently^{probablethat publicationin the local daily Aacharan} which is widely circulqted in the area would have^{constituted a sufrcient notice to the defendants.The} publication of the substituted service in the local daily Aacharan^{insteado/ Dainik Bhaskaris a mere} irregularity in semice of summons.^"

¶96

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Covt in Sunil^{Poddarv. UnionBank} of India freported in 000& 2 SCC³²⁶¹ that service of^{summons by publicationin}

¶97

newspaper is effective even if the^{defendantwas not a subscriberor reader of the said}

¶98

newspaper, and it reads thus:-

¶99

"L is immaterial whether the appellants were subscribers of lhe said newspaper and whether lhey were reading it. Once a summons is^{publishedin a newspaperhaving widecirculationin ,he locality,it} does nol lie in the mouth ofthe^person sought^{to be servedthat he was not swqre of suchpublicationas he} was nol reading the said newspaper, "

¶100

In the above circumstances, the applicant^{is deemed to be served by} Annexure 83 demand notice. Annexure 86 is the^{possessionnotice dated11.10.2018} issued by the authorised officer of the^defendant bank under^{5.13(4) of the Act taking} possession ofthe schedule secured asset. Though the applicant^{has contended thathe had} been promptly paying the EMIs to the^{loan account} till^{01.032020and that he had paid} the lump sum amount several times including^{the amountsas detailedin paragraph12 of} the SA and the same^was not^{appropriatedintothe account and also thathe had paid the} entire loan amount to the bank^{he hasnot proved the same except claimingso. He has not}

¶101

¶102

any iota of evidence regarding^{discharge pleaded by him. It is well settledthat} ::"_ar*,

¶103

¶104

sA 556/2022

¶105

the person who pleads discharge should prove the same. On the contrary, the defendant bank had contended that the applicant defaulted in repayments and thus the account was classified as non-performing asset on 11.05.2017. According to the applicant, such classification also is wrong.

¶106

¶107

Annexure A23 statement of account produced by the defendant bank along with the statement of account shows that it had reversed the sum of 1280/- debited by way ofpenal interest and the sum of {74,851/- and 1100/- debited by way of interest on classifuing the account as non-performing asset on 11.05.2017. It further shows that the remittances as shown in Sl Nos.l to 1l in paragraph 12 had been appropriated as on the dates itself (the dates at Sl Nos.3 to 5 are mistakenly showed instead of respectively, 20.03.2021; 25.03.2021 and 26.03.2021). The defendant bank in its statement of objection has stated that the amount of {30.50 lakhs and t9.50 lakhs deposited respectively on 21.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 were refunded to the applicant as the said payment was made subsequent to the confirmation of the sale. The charging of penal interest only shows that the applicant had defaulted in complying with the terms of the sanction. The applicant has no case that at any point^.of time even after issuance of Annexure 83 demand notice he had regularised the account by paying off the irregular portion of interest under the term loan. Annexure B 1 sanction order shows that the term loan of {88,97,580/- was to be repaid in 288 monthly instalments of 779,7721- each commencing from the month following the month in which the moratorium period of 12 months ends from the date of availment. Absolutely, there is default in^payment of the instalments for a period of more than ninety days and the account had ceased to^generate income for the defendant bank. Even according to the applicant, he had only^agreed to regularise the account but made no claim that he had actually^paid off the irregular portion. Noticing the fact of debiting loan penalty interest under the account even from July 2016 reveals that there is default in due^repayment of^{instalments along withinterest}

¶108

sA 556D022

¶109

¶110

since the year 2016 itself. The applicant has no case that he had strictly complied with the terms and conditions of the sanction. He has also no case that he had responded to Annexure 83 and 86 notices and had regularised the account. The loan being term loan, the applicant could have remitted the irregular portion of the interest and could have regularised the account in order. The applicant has no such case. As per the definition under clause (i) in S.2 of the Act, default means non-payment of any debt and as per clause (o) non-performing asset means an asset or account of a borrower which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset and they read as below:-

¶111

"(j) default means-

¶112

(i) non-payment ofarry debt or any other amount payable by the bolrower to any sec1..red ueditor consequent upon which the account of such borrower is classified as non-perfoming qsset in the books of accounl ofthe secured creditor; or

¶113

(ii) non-paymmt of^qny debt or^qny other amounl payable by the borrower with respect tort debt sectrities dter notice of ninety doys clemonding payment of dues served upon such bonower b1t the debenture trustee or^qny other authority in whose favour securily interest is created for the benelit of holders o/the srch debt securities.

¶114

(o) non-pedorming osset means an asset or qccount of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, doubtlul or loss asset,-

¶115

(a) in case such bank or financial institution is administered or regulated by any authority or body established, constiluted or appointed by any law for the tine being in fore, in dccordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classificotions issued by such authority or body;

¶116

@)^{in any othercase, in accordqnce u'ith the direcliotts or guidelinesrelating} to dssets classifications issued by the Reserve Banlc"

¶117

As per the explanation given in the Act, the word 'non-performing asset'

¶118

¶119

is a colourable substitute for 'bad debt' about which there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. The Reserve Bank of India's prudential norns on asset classification defines a 'non-performing asset as 'a credit facility in respect of which the interest and or instalment of principal has remained past due' for a specified period of time. An asset, including a leased asset, becomes non-performing asset when it ceases to generate income for a bank. Any amount due to bank under any credit facility is 'overdue' if it is not paid on the due date fixed by the bank. The applicant has no case that these facts are not applicable to his account in question. Therefore, there is no lallflll point in

¶120

sA 556D022

¶121

¶122

contending that the account had not become non-performing asset and hence the defendant bank was not entitled to invoke the provisions under the Act to enforce its security interest over its secured asset.

¶123

Undisputedly, the applicant failed to discharge the debt due to the defendant bank in response to Annexure 83 notice and the action of taking possession by way of Annexure 86 was taken evidently on the expiry of sixty days from Annexure 84 and 85 publications dated 12.08.2018 only. Similar to the discussion as under paragraph 22 abotte, Annexure 86 possession notice was sent by registered post to the applicant on 11.10.2018 by virtue of photocopy of the postal receipts appended to Annexwe 86. Annexure 87 shows that the same had been returned un-served. Therefore, the defendant bank served Annexure 86 possession notice to the applicant by way of substituted service by way of Annexures 88 and B9 publication in two leading dailies (including a local daily) dated 16.10.2018. Annexures B9(a) to B9(c) are the copies of photographs for evidence of affixture of Annexure 86 possession notice. However, it was desirable for the defendant bank to produce the original postal covers, postal receipts, a report of affixture and a copy each of the dailies as documents in evidence instead of piecemeal evidences. The applicant has not controverted these facts in issue by reason or otherwise. Therefore, by the averments and the copies ofdocuments produced by the defendant bank it is proved that the contention regarding non-delivery and non-service of notices as raised by the applicant is only false. This Tribunal finds and declares so that the defendant bank through its authorised officer has delivered and served Annexure 83 and Annexure 86 notices in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules to the applicant and the dispute in contra is only to be ovemrled and thus rejected. The issue is thus answered against the applicant.

¶124

¶125

Issue No.(iii):- According to the applicant, the security interest has not been registered with CERSAI and hence the defendant bank is not entitled to invoke the

¶126

sA 556DO22

¶127

¶128

provisions under the Act. The defendant bank has not addressed this issue in its statement of objection. However, on analysing the facts in issue, this amounts to a question of law. No documentary evidence adduced by either side on this point also.

¶129

The Central Registry under Chapter IV of the Act is defined as the Registry set up or caused to be set up under S.20(l) of the Act by the Central Govemment vide notification No.GSR 277(E) dated 31.03.201I for the purposes of registration of transaction of securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and creation of security interest under the Act. Any provisions of the Act specified in s.20(4) or any other law requiring registration of changes are in addition to the registration with the central Registry. The central Govemment vide the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 rtw the notification No.So 4619(E) dated 26.12.2019 inserted chapter IV A [Registration by secured creditors and other creditors - Ss.26B to 26El applicable with effect from 24.01.2020. sub-section (2) to 5.268 says that from the date of notification under subsection (1), any creditor including the secured creditor may file particulars of transactions of creation, modification or satisfaction ofany security interest with the central Regishy in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) thereof says that a creditor other than the secured creditor filing particulars of transactions of creation, modification and satisfaction of security interest over properties created in its favour shall not be entitled to exercise any right of enforcement of securities under this Act. In subsection 26D under the head 'right of enforcement of securities', it is specifically stated that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, from the date of commencement ofthe provisions of this chapter, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities under chapter III unless the security interest created in its favour by the borrower has been registered with the central

¶130

¶131

The defendant bank vide Annexure 83 has shown that the demand notice under ::*-,

¶132

¶133

sA,556n022

¶134

5.13(2) of the Act had been issued on 16.07.2018 and vide Annexure 86 that the possession notice under 5.13(4) of the Act had been issued on 11.10.2018. On the showing of the applicant itself, Annexure Al order was obtained by the authorised officer of the defendant bank on 13.12.2018 only and the order dated 26.07.2022 is for repossession in view of the criminal offence committed by the applicant.

¶135

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Druss & Pharmaceuticals Ltd ad Another v. R.K Shewaramani freoorted in⁽²⁰⁰⁵⁾ 6 SCC 76] that amended rule could operate only from the date of the amendment and that the rule cannot be impugned on ground that it has retrospective effect. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in K.R Ramesh v Central Bureau qf lnvestigation freported in 2020 (3) K]J 693 : 2020 ICO 7561 has held that every statute dealing with a substantive right is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation; that it is also equally true that an express provision should be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication and that generally all amendment of substantive nature are prospective, unless the Amendment Act discloses expressly or by necessary implication a different intention. It may be noted that the Central Govemment vide the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amdt) Act, 2016 rlw the notification No.SO 4619(E) dated 26.12.2019 inserted Chapter IV A [Registration^{by secured creditorsandother creditors - Ss.26Bto 26E] applicable with} effect from 24.01.2020 only whereas the original cause of action to file the SA had already arisen on 1L10.2018. Notwithstanding any.thing contained in this Act, admittedly there is a mortgage created over the secured asset under the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882. Therefore, the CERSAI registration cannot be made mandatory to the facts of this case.

sA 556/2022

It has also been made a contention by the applicant that the provisions of

¶140

the Act are not applicable to UCO bank and hence it is disabled from invoking the provisions under the Act. It may be noted that S.13 of the Act entitles a secured creditor to enforce its security interest created in its favour without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶141

Clause (zd) under S.2 ofthe Act defines a'secured creditor' as follows:-

¶142

" (i) any bank or Jinancial instilution or any consorthlm or group of banLs or linancial Ntitutions holding any right, title or interesl upon any tangible asset or intangible assel as speci/ied in clause O;

¶143

(i, debenture trustee appointed by any bank or financial irutitution; or

¶144

(iii) an asset reconstruction compary whether acting as such or mqnaging d trasl se, up b/ such asset reconstraction companyfor the secaritisation or reconstruction, as the case may be, or

¶145

(iv) debenture trustee registered with the Board and appointedfor seared debt securities: or

¶146

(v) arry other truslee holding secttrities on behalf of a bank or financial institution, in whose favour security interest is created by any borrower for due repayment of any Jinancial assislance,"

¶147

As per S.2(c) of the Act, 'bank' means inbluding a banking company. No doubt, the defendant bank is a banking company established under the Banking Companies Act, 1956 (which is now repealed by Act 2013) and has the meaning assigned to it in clause (c) of S.5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In the above circumstances, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the defendant bank and it is entitled to enforce its security interest over the secured asset.

¶148

The applicant has no case that the SA schedule immovable property is not a secured asset, the defendant bank is not a secured crcditor and that the right of the secured creditor over such property is not its security interest as defined under S.2 ofthe Act. In the above circumstances, there is no lawful substance in the contention raised by the applicant bank that the defendant bank is not entitled to enforce its security interest over its secured asset. The point is thus answered against the applicant.

¶149

¶150

Issue No.(iv):- Yet another contention raised by the applicant is that at the time of availing the loans, the UCO bank took the signatures of the applicant in blank and papers. It may be noted that no adjudicatory power relating to the debt has l::u-."O

¶151

¶152

sA55612022

¶153

been given to the Tribunal in an application preferred under S.17(1) of the Act and what has to be examined by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences adduced by the parties is as to whether the measures taken by the secured creditor as referred to sub-section (4) of S.l3 of the Act are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the question of signing in blank papers and documents does not arise in this proceeding.

¶154

The relief prayed for in the SA is to set aside the order dated 26.07.2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in C Mis No.532l2018. It is the contention of the applicant that the defendant bank moved Crl Mis No.53212018 after a lapse of four years and got the order illegally, which amounts to perjury. It appears to be the case of the applicant that the CJM has not complied with the time limit specified under the second proviso to sub-section (l) of S.l4 of the Act. However, it may be noted that the time period inserted by the amendment made effective with effect from 01.09.2016 vide SO No.283l(E) dated 01.09.2016 is not mandatory but directory only. The CJM beyond such period is still having the power to exercise his right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bright v District Collector freported in 2020 (6.) KLT 489 (SCU has held that mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within 30 days, extendable to an aggregate of 60 days upon reasons recorded in writing, is a directory provision and that inability to take possession within the time limit does not render the District Magistrate functus officio. The relevant portion reads thus:-

¶155

¶156

"The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passeil by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court of 19.07-2019, whereby it was held that 5.14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within 30 days, extendable to qn qggregate of 60 days upon reasons recorded in writing, is a directory provision. The secured creditor has no control over the District Magistrate who is acercising jurisdiction under S.l4 of the Actfor public good tofacilitate recovery of public dues. Therefore, S.l4 of the Act is not to be interpreted literally without considering the object and purpose of the Act. If any other interpretation is placed upon the language of S. I 4, it would be contary to the purpose of the Act. The time limit is to instil a confidence in creditors that the District Magistrate will make an attempt to deliver possession as well as to impose a duty on the District Magistrate to make an earnest effort to comply with the mandate of the stotute to deliver the possession within 30 days and for reasons to be recordedwithin 60 days. In this light, the remedy under 5.14 of the Act is not redundant if the Magistrate is unable to handover the possession. The District Magistrate will still be enioined

:,::,"

sA 55612022

upon, the duty to facilitate delivery of possession at lhe earliest. However, inability to take possession y)ilhin time limil does not render lhe District mqgistratelunctus ofrcio."

¶161

The defendant bank in its statement ofobjection has submitted that though it filed C Mis No.532l2018 before the CJM Court, Bangalore, the bank could not take possession of the secured asset pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2018 therein due to pandemic situation and in view of the criminal offence committed by the applicant, the CJM court vide order dated 26.07.2022 in C Mis No.532l2018 given permission to take re-possession of the secured asset. A perusal of Annexure A1 shows that the CJM, Bangalore vide order dated, 13.12.2018 in C Misc No.532l2018 had permitted the defendant bank to take possession of the schedule immovable property. However, as the applicant and other people trespassed into the property and dispossessed the defendant bank without taking recourse to law on 16.03.2022, the said CJM Court in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka in the relevant Writ Petition filed by the defendant bank, passed an order on 26.07.2022 to take re-possession of the secured. asset. The said order was passed as per the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with such order. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Dewan Housins Finance Corporation Limited v Superintendent of Police freported in 20]8⁽³⁾ KLT 4021 has held that exercise of right by bank to take possession of secured asset is a statutory right under the Act and that when such statutory rights are being exercised by a secure creditor, it is not open for zmy person for that reason to trespass into such property which has already been taken possession. The relevant portion reads as below:-

¶162

"Bank had taken possession of the secured asset. The exercise of right by the bank to take possession of the secured asset is a statutory right under the SARFAESI Act. When such statutory rights are being aercised by a seatred creditor, it is not openfor any personfor that reason to trespass inlo such property which has already been laken possession. lf such auitude is permi ed, the stqtulory right of the secured creditor will become an Etewash and it mqy not be possible /or the Bank to realise the seared debt. At any rate, since the possession of the properly had already been taken as per the direction issued by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, we are ofthe opinion that the direction soughtfor is reasonable."

sA ss6t2022

It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Kumaran v Suoerintendent of Police [teported i? 2022⁽³⁰ KLT 672 : 2022⁽²⁾ K]J 862 : 2022 ICO 61 1l that in appropriate cases, the police force of the State can be directed to use its force to restore possession of the prope(y which has wrongly been deprived from the true owner. The relevant portion reads as below:-

¶167

"Thus, the secared asset having been taken possession by recourse to the proyisions ofS.l4 ofthe Act, the sanctity ofthe order of the Magistrate is required to be ensured. As a sentinel on the qui vive, this Courl can, in appropriate cqses direct the^policeforce of lhe Slote to use ils force to resrore possession of the property which has wrongly been deprivedfrom the true owner. The need to exercise the power ofthis Court to act as a guardian of law is anplified in this case due lo the facts^placed on record. lVhen the indispulsble records produced, etplicitly show the absence of any bona Jide or real disputed questions of fact,^{lhis Courtmust slepinto aidthe enforcemento/ruleof law."}

¶168

¶169

Things being so, the applicant has pleaded further developments pursuant to the order daled 26.07.2022 in the pleadings. The defendant bank in the statement of objection has stated that the schedule immovable property had already been sold on 24.02.2021 as the applicant had not complied with the provisions under 5.13(8) of the Act. Still, in an application filed on 08.08.2022, the applicant conspicuously did not challenge such sale but confined to challenge only the order dated 26.07 .2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which remains unfettered as stated above. Going by the provisions under Ss.13, 14 and 15 of the Act, on every measure taken by the secured creditor to enforce its security interest over the secured asset for recovery of its secured debt from the secured debtors the aggrieved party accrues a right to prefer an application under S.17(l) of the AcL In the above circumstances, this Tribunal cannot^go beyond the relief prayed for and look into the further developments when the applicant has consciously avoided the same in the relief portion. It is not the case where the relief awardable as on the date of commencement of the application has become inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances^pending the application, but a case where further developments occrrred even before filing of the application but the same have been consciously omitted by the applicant to seek for an appropriate relief. ln the above circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to conline with the^pleadings with regard to

¶170

sA 556D022

¶171

¶172

the relief sought for. The applicant has not^challenged the^sale notice or^{sale taken place} pursuant thereto. It is inappropriate to adjudicate such matters without amending the relief prayed for. The applicant despite the aforesaid developments^known to^{it even} before filing the application did not^care to^amendthe reliefportion.^{This Tribunalcannot} grant or adjudicate to more than what is sought for. A previous cause of action shall not be invoked to challenge a further development in the^proceedings which amounts to a fresh cause of action when there is express, effrcacious and direct statutory remedy is available to challenge the same. Seeking of relief with respect of the cause of action^is purely the discretion of the applicant. This Tribunal is fortified in this view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shehla Burne! v Sled Ali Mossa Raza freported in⁽²⁰¹ l) 6^{SCC5291. It was held by the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in State of} Orissa v Mamata Mohan, freported in 201 I^(l) I<LT SN 76^(C.No.l05) SC] that relief not claimed cannot be ganted. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cowt in Pvare Mohan Lal v State of Jharkhand lreported in 00]0 l0 SCC 6931 that relief not specifically sought cannot be^granted. This Tribunal has the^power to review and mould the reliefprayed for on account of developments subsequent to the application or events happened pending the application only where the relief prayed for or would be^granted would become obsolete or unserviceable. When the applicant has knowingly and consciously challenged only Annexure Al order, this Tribunal^cannot travel^{beyond that.}

¶173

In the above circumstances and in view ofthe net result ofthe^discussion as above, the^{grounds proposed} by the applicant to^{show that} the^{defendant bank has not} complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder^{to proceed} against its secured asset are unsustainableⁱⁿ the^eye of law.^The SA^{is thus devoid} of^any merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

¶174

¶175

In the result, SA dismissed. Notwithstanding^{an1'thingcontained in any} for the time being in force, the defendant bank is entitled to^continue with^the ::.^"*

¶176

¶177

sA556/2022

¶178

proceedings pursurmt to Annexure A1 order dated 26.07 .2022 for^{recovery of its secured} debt by enforcing its security interest over^{the SA schedule securedasset. As the interim} order merges with this final order IA 22lll2\22^{is closed. No costs.}

¶179

Communicate copy of this^final order^{to both parties as providedin sub-}

¶180

section (7) of S.l7 of the Act r/w R.l6 of^{the Debts RecoveryTribunal (Procedure)}

¶181

Rules,^! 993 as amended from time to^time.

¶182

[Dictated^{to my PA directlyon the computer, correctedand pronouncedby me in theopen Tribunal onthisthe 05'h dq} of September, 202j1 \

¶183

¶184

¶185

t^IMTIAZALI ] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶186

Appendix to SA 556/2022

APPE N D IX

Anplicant's Exhibits

Witnessforthe	applicant	Nil
Witnessfordefe	ndant	Nil
ExhibitNo.	Date	Particularsofdocuments
Annexure-A	l26.07.2022	CertifiedcopyoftheorderpassedbytheCJMRuralCourt, Bengaluru under S.14oftheActsubsequenttotheorder dated13.12.2018
AnnexureA2	22.11.2018	Certified copyofCrlMisNo.532l2018beforetheCJM, Bangalore,
AnnexureA3	26.07.2022	Accompanyingaffidavitbythepetitionerin AnnexureA2
Annexurez{4	26.07.2022	Memorandumofapplication underSW.309ofCrPCin Crl MiscNo.53212018
AnnexureA5	01.06.2022	Certified copyofCrlMisNo.734/2022bforeACMMat Bangalore
Annexure14'6	01.06.2022	Certifiedcopyofaffidavitofthepetitionerin Annexure,A.5
AnnexureA7	11.07.2022	Certifiedcopyofstatementofobjectionfiledbythe respondentinCrlMis No.734l2022
AnnexureA8	12.07.2022	Certihed copyofapplication under 5.3098ofCrPCbythe petitionerin AnnexureA'5application
AnnexureA.9	21.07.2022	Certifiedcopyofmemofor withdrawal
AnnexureAl0	2l.07.2022	Certified copyofordersheetinCrlMisNo.73412022 before CJM,Rural Court, Bengaluru
AnnexureAlI	12.07.2022	CopyofOrderby theHon'ble HighCourtofKamatakain WP Nos.13208/2022and5183/2021
AnnexueA12	23.06.2022	Copyofsalecertificateinrespectoftheschedule immovableproperty
AnnexureAl3	21.10.2015	Copyofsanctionofcredit facilityunderUCOhomeloan
AnnexureAl4		Statementofaccountinrespectofaccount No.06236610014387fortheperiodfrom21.10.2015 to 08.03.2022
AnnexureA15		Copyofstatementofaccountforaccount No.9212500100272001fortheperiodftom01.03.2022to 23.06.2022

¶191

Defendant's Exhibits

¶192

ExhibitNo.	Date	Particularsofdocuments
Annexure-BI	21.10.2015	Copyofsanctionletterissuedby thedefendant banktothe applicantadvisinghimsanctionofterm loanof <88,97,580/- underUCOhome loanscheme
Annexure82	21.10.201s	Copyofmemorandumofentryforequitablemortgage depositof titledeedsexecutedbytheapplicantinfavourof thedefendantbank

¶193

¶194

Appendix to SA 556/2022

¶195

¶196

Annexure83	16.07.2018	CopyofdemandnoticeissuedunderS.l3(2)oftheActby thedefendanttotheapplicant andanothercallingupon them todischargethe debtof189,35,810/-ason16.07.2018 withinsixtydaysfromthedateofreceiptofsuchnotice
Annexure84	12.08.2018	CopyofextractofpublicationofAnnexureB3madein localdaily
Annexure85	12.08.2018	CopyofextractofpublicationofAnnexure83madein Englishdaily
Annexure86	11.10.2018	Copyofpossessionnoticeissuedunder 5.13(4)oftheAct bythedefendantinrespectoftheschedule immovable property
Annexure87		Retumed postal envelopes(fournumbers)
Annexure88	16.10.2018	CopyofextractofpublicationofAnnexure86madein Englishdaily
Annexure89	16.10.2018	CopyofextractofpublicationofAnnexure86madein local daily
Annexure89 (atoc)		Photographsofaffrxture
AnnexureB1	18.03.2022	CopyofFIR
AnnexueBlI	06.12.201	8Copyofordersheetin CrlMiscNo.532l2018beforeCJM, RuralCourt, Bengaluru
AnnexureB1	12.11.2018	Copyofsalenotice
AnnexureB13	31.01.201	9Copyof publicnoticeofauction
AnnexureBl4	07.04.202	1Copyofletterissuedbythe applicanttothedefendant bank
AnnexureBl5	16.04.2021	Copyofreplyissuedbythe applicant to the defendant bank
AnnexureBl6	22.04.2022	Copyof publicnoticeofe-auctionsale
AnnexureBl7	21.05.202	Copyofletterissuedbytheapplicanttotheauthorised officer ofthedefendant bank
AnnexnreB18	23.05.2022	Copyofletterissuedbytheauthorisedoffrcerofthe defendant banktoSylajaK
AnnexureB19	23.06.2022	Copy ofsalecertificate
AnnexureB20	29.08.2015	Copyof valuation report
Annexure821		Copyofvaluationreport
Annexure822	26.08.2021	Copyof valuation report
AnnexureB23		Statementofaccountinrespectofaccount
		No.06230610014387fortheperiodfrom21.10.2015to 08.07.2022

¶197

-.,r,kL:;:;

¶198

Scheduleto 5A556t2022

¶199

¶200

All that part and parcel of the property bearing No.4, Assessment No.g/4, BBMp ward No'72' Situated at Heroha-lli V,,age, yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North raluk, measuring East to west 20 ft'and North to South 60 Ft,, tota,y measuring 1200 Sq ft and proposed construction of ggg.g2 sq Ft each and consisting of st,th + 3 floors and 105 sq ft in Head room, total construction area being 4065.34 Sq Ft and bounded by:_

¶201

East by :^propergr bearing No.05 West by : Property bearing No.O3

¶202

North by : Road

¶203

South by :Assessment No.8/5 and g/SC.

¶204

. o.t? b't PRESIDI} OFFICER

¶205

¶206

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBTJNAL. 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶207

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶208

Dated the 05th day of September, 2023

¶209

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 556 OF 2022

¶210

Between Sathish S, S/o Krishnaiah, fill, 4tt'Main Road, 2nd Cross, Kottigepaly4 Bangalore, Kamataka - 560091. ...Applicant And UCO Bank, 238/35,gth Main Road, 3'd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Kamataka-560111, represented by the authorised officer. Defendant

¶211

FINAL ORDER

Mr Sathish S v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sathish S v. Uco Bank

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

Abdul Nazar @ Chinnappa versus Hdfc Bank

Woodmall Furniture versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Sree Guru Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagdeep

Nisha Nitin Koppikar versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Bank of India versus Palli Yashwanth