Allowed

G Obul Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

DRT28 Aug 2023SA/72/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Tribunal quashed a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court held that the respondent failed to prove compliance with procedural mandates regarding the prior statutory demand notice and the publication/affixture of the possession notice within the stipulated time under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

What did the court decide?

The possession notice dated 08.03.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

G Obul Reddy versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2BTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2022

¶5

G. Obul Reddy, S/o SriObul Reddy Proprietor: M/s. Aqua Suraksha Mineral Industry H. No. 7/105, Opp: Sri Kodandarama Swamy Kalyana Vedika, Vontimetta, Kadapa Dist. A.P.

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Kadapa Branch, Kadapa District Rep. by its Authorised Officer.

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Mr. A. Naresh. Counsel for the Applicant : Respondent : Exparte.

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 assailing the Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 lssued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property.

¶13

Mr. S. Ramesh, Advocate, filed Memo appearing for Mr. P. Anil Mukarji, Counsel for respondent. Thereafter, there is no representation for the respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent was set ex-parte on 14.07.202, MO

¶14

SA.No.72/2022

¶15

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

¶16

According the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant that applicant availed credit facilities for his business in the year 2015. The respondent obtained several signatures of the applicant on a bunch of blank formats at the time of sanctioning the loan. Applicant has been regular in paying the EMIs. The loan account does not fall in the NpA category. However, respondent issued impugned possession notice claiming the outstanding dues of Rs.87,86,000/_. prior to the impugned possession notice, appricant has not received the statutory demand notice u/s 13(2) alleged to have been issued on 30.10.2018. The possession notice dated 08.03.2022 has neither been affixed on the secured assets nor published in two newspapers within the stipulated time under rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thus, the action of respondent in issuing the impugned possession notice is unwarranted, illegal and deserve to be set aside. Hence, prayed for quashing of the possession notice dated 08.03.2022.

¶17

As stated supra, the Respondent remained ex_parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to compliance of due procedure under section 13(2) in serving demand notice and affixture and publication of possession notice dated 0g.03.2022 while enforcing the security interest over the application schedule property by Respondent, the present securitisation Application has to be ailowed by setting aside the possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the application schedule properties.

¶18

ow*

¶19

SA.No.72/2022

¶20

6' In the resurt, the present Securitisation Apprication is ailowed by setting aside the possession Notice 0g.03.2022 issued u/s,13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Respondent against the application schedule properties. Consequently interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictoted to steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the gpen court on this the 28th doy of August,2123).

¶22

¶23

PRESIDING OFFICER

G Obul Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Obul Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

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

Punjab National Bank versus Maa Fly- Ash Bricks Industries and Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Vishwa Faishon And General Store and Others

Shreejan Cold Storage Private Limited versus Uco Bank

Sh Samarth Singh Hooda versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Manoj Kumar Singh and others

Hdfc Bank versus P Veera Brahmaiah