Dismissed

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh v. Federal Bank

DRT16 Nov 2023SA/79/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application challenging an order authorizing bank possession. The Tribunal held the application was maintainable despite delay due to Supreme Court pandemic directives, notices were validly served, and the Magistrate correctly exercised sua sponte powers.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Appeal dismissed; original order maintaining possession approved; respondents permitted to resume proceedings.

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh versus Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL. I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated the l6th day of November,Z)23

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2022

¶5

Between

¶6

1., B Pattabhiram Singh, S/o Muni Balaji Singh, 34, Sirur Park Road, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560020. 2. Saritha Krishna, W/o B Pattabhiram Singh, 34, Sirur Park Road, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560020. ...Applicants

¶7

And

¶8

1., The authorised officer, The Federal Bank Limited, Loan Collection & Recovery Department Bangalore Division. 4,znd Cross, CSI Compound. Mission Road, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560027. 2. Rupeek Capital Private Limited, 45B, Subham Complex, l't A Main, 3'dPhase,JPNagar, Bangalore, Kamataka - 560078. .. .... Defendants

¶9

This Securitisation Application having been heard on 10.04.2023 in the presence

¶10

of Advocates IM/s Vignesh Shetty, Venu K V, Prasanna Kumari, Naushad A K, Kiran SS

¶11

¶12

and Natasha N Murthy for the applicants, and Advocates Mis Veena R Rai, R C Rai and Basavanagowda for the l't defendant, and the 2"d defendant being absent, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

¶13

sA79t2022

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The applicants filed the above Securitisation Application (SA) on 10.01 .2022 under S.17(l) 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 04.05.2021passed by the XXXII Additional CMM Bengaluru in Crl Misc No.213012020. The applicants are none other than the borrowers of a financial assistance in the form of term loan of {200 lakhs availed on 28.08.2015 from the Federal Bank Limited.

¶16

¶17

The case set out by the applicants in the SA in brief is as follows:- The applicants on28.08.2015 availed a financial assistance in the form of term loan of {200 lakhs from the Federal Bank Limited, the repayment of which was collaterally secured by the equitable mortgage created by them over the schedule immovable property. The applicants were prompt and regular in repayment but the account was declared as nonperforming asset on 30.1 1.2016 and the I't defendant issued demand notice under S.13(2) of the Act on 31.12.2016, which was never served upon the applicants. No notice prior to classification of the account as non-performing asset was issued to the applicants. Thereafter, symbolic possession of the schedule immovable property was taken by issuing a possession notice under 5.13(4) of the Act on 03.07.2017. The possession notice also was not issued to the applicants. The same was not affixed and published in newspapers. The applicants in the year 2015 itself had intimated the change of address to the I't defendant but no notice was sent to the said address. Thereafter order dated 04.05.2021 was obtained from the XXXII Additional CMM Bengaluru in Crl Misc No.2130/2020 for taking physical possession of the same. These applicants contested the case and filed objection statement. Ld CMM passed the impugned order authorising the I't defndnt to take physical possession of the same. The l't defendant is not an officer subordinate to him to take physical possession of the secured assets. The said adverse

¶18

sA79t2022

¶19

order was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the applicants. On the above contentions, the applicants prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 04.0s.202t.

¶20

The I't defendant filed statement of objection contending as follows:- The application is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The applicants on 28.08.2015 availed a term loan of t200 lakhs from the Federal Bank Limited on duly executing various loan security documents and creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the schedule immovable property in its favour. The possession notice was issued on03.07.2017 and was published in two newspapers. The same was also affixed on the conspicuous part of the property. The said possession notice was already challenged by a, SA filed with Dy No.2657/2018 (IR No.226912018), which was dismissed on 04.05.2022. Therefore, the proceedings or measures initiated by the I't defendant till the time of issuance of possession notice dated 03.07.2017 is held valid and correct. The loan account was classified as non-performing asset on 30.11.2016. Thereafter, demand notice dated 31.L2.2016 under S.l3(2) of the Act and possession notice dated 03.07.2017 under S.13(4) of the Act were issued, which were duly served on the applicants. The schedule immovable property is the secured asset of the I't defendant. On the above contentions, the 1't defendant prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶21

The 2nd defendant was duly served with summons. But it never appeared nor was it represented and thus it remained absent in the proceedings.

¶22

¶23

The applicant produced two documents in support of their contentions, which are for convenience marked as Annexures Al and A2. Similarly, the I't defendant produced twelve documents along with its statement of objections, which are for coflvenience marked as Annexures 81 to Bl2. However, it was desirable for a leading scheduled commercial bank like the Federal Bank Limited to produce the originals of the postal receipts, postal acknowledgement cards, postal envelopes, photograph, report of

¶24

sA79t2022

¶25

affixture, dailies etc before this Tribunal instead of producing the piecemeal evidences by way of photocopies of the same.

¶26

On appreciation of the rival contentions, the only issue arises for consideration is as to whether the applicants are entitled to the relief prayed for?

¶27

The Issue:- The I't defendant has raised an objection to the SA to the effect that the same is not maintainable as barred by limitation. While advancing arguments Ld counsel for the I't defendant contended that the applicants filed the SA on t0.01.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 without filing an IA for corldonation of delay and hence the SA filed is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable before this Tribunal. But Ld counsel for the applicants relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 26.1t.2021 in WP No.I 173412021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding limitation during the pandemic situation claimed that the SA is within the period of limitation. According to him, the Hon'ble e Supreme Court excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 in computing the period of limitation for instituting proceedings (within which the Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶28

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2021passed by the Additional CMM Bengaluru in Crl Misc No.213012020, the applicants on 10.01.2022 filed the present SA under S.17(1) of the Act before this Tribunal praying to set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2021. Thus, an application under S.l7(l) of the Act ought to have been filed on or before 18.06.2021. However, the applicants filed an application under S.l7(l) of the Act only on 10.01.2022 with a delay of 206 days.

¶29

¶30

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re ; Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [reported in 2022 (].t KLT 315 6CU taking into consideration the impact of the surge of covid viruses on public health and the adversities faced by the litigants directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the

¶31

sA79t2022

¶32

purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all^judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 til|28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of imitation remaining, all person shall have a limitation period of

¶33

90 days from 01 .03.2022, and the relevant portion reads as below:-

¶34

"Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and^qdversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the MA No.2l of 2022 with thefollowing directions: The order dqted 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021^qnd 23.09.2021, it is directed thot the period from I 5.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation qs mqy be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judiciql proceedings. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.202 1, if any, shall become available with effect from 0l .03.2022. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall hqve a limitation period of 90 daysfrom 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer periodshall apply. It isfurther clarified that the periodfrom 15.03.20920 ti\I28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under 5s.23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.l2A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of 5.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 I and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of lintitation.for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone deloy) and termination of proceedings. "

¶35

In view of the above direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants were entitled to present an application under S.l7(l) of the Act aggrieved by the measure taken by the I't defendant authorised officer of the Federal Bank Limited on or before 30.05.2022 as the limitation (stipulated date of '18.06.2021') had expired duiing the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. However, they presented the same on 10.01.2022, well before such date prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above circumstances, the delay of 206 days in presenting the present SA comes within the outer limit within which this Tribunal can condone as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision supra. In the above circumstances, the present SA is not barred by limitation and thus maintainable before this Tribunal.

¶36

¶37

Admittedly, the applicants on 28.08.2015 availed a financial assistance in the form of term loan of t200 lakhs from the Federal Bank Limited, the repayment of which was collaterally secured by the equitable mortgage created by them over the

¶38

sA79t2022

¶39

schedule immovable property. According to the applicants, they were prompt and regular in repayment but the account was declared as non-performing asset on 30.11.2016 and the l't defendant issued demand notice under S.l3(2) of the Act on 31.12.2016, which was never served upon the applicants. It is submitted by them that no notice prior to classification of the account as non-performing asset was issued to them. It is also contended by them that thereafter, symbolic possession of the schedule immovable property was taken by issuing a possession notice under S.l3(4) of the Act on 03.07.2017 but the possession notice also was not issued to them and he same was not affixed and published in newspapers whereas the applicants in the year 2015 itself had intimated the ch4nge of address to the l't defendant but no notice was sent to the said address. Per contra, it was defended by the I'l defendant that the applicants on 28.08.2015 availed a term loan of t200 lakhs from the Federal Bank Limited on duly executing various loan security documents and creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the schedule immovable property in its favour. According to him, the loan account was classified as non-performing asset on 30.11.2016 and thereafter, demand notice dated 31.12.20L6 under S.13(2) of the Act and possession notice dated 03.07.2017 under S.l3(4) of the Act were issued, which were duly served on the applicants. It is submitted by'him that the possession notice dated 03.07.2011 was published in two newspapers and was affixed on the conspicuous part of the property. It is further submitted that the said possession notice was already challenged by an SA filed with Dy No.2657l2018 (IR No.226912018), which was dismissed on 04.05.2022 and, therefore, the proceedings or measures initiated by the 1't defendant till the time of issuance of possession notice dated 03.07.2017 is held valid and correct.

¶40

The core issue relating to the SA is the service of notices in terms of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The applicants are aggrieved by the infirmity in such service only. S.l3 of the Act deals with enforcement of security interest :::"*

¶41

sA7912022

¶42

and sub-sections (2) and (3) thereto specifies the mode of requirement by the secured

¶43

creditor to the borrower by notice in writing to discharge the debt due, and it reads as

¶44

below:-

¶45

"(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any defoult in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof and his account in respect ofsuch debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing osset, then, the secured creditor moy require lhe borrower by notice in writing to discharge in firll his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any ofthe rights under sub-section (4):

¶46

PROVIDED that^_

¶47

(i) the requiremenl of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this subsection shall not apply to a borrower who has raisedfunds through issue of debt securities; and

¶48

(ii) in the event of default, the debenture truslee shall be entilled to enforce securiry interesl in the same monner as provided under this seclion with such ntodiJications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security docutnents executed in favour of lhe debenture trustee.

¶49

@^{The notice referredto in sub-section(2) sholl} give details of the amottnt payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of nonpayment of secured debts by the boruower. "

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

"G) In case the borrowerfails to discharge his liability in/ult within the periodspeciJied in subsection (2), lhe secured creditor mqy lake recourse to one or nrore of thefollowing rueqsltres to recover his secured debt, namely:-

¶54

(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer byway of lease, assignment or salefor realising the secure asset;

¶55

(b) take over the mqnagement of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or salefor realising the secured asset:

¶56

PROVIDED that the right to transfer by ,ay of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the boruower is held as securityfor the debt:

¶57

PROVIDED FURTHER that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shqll take over the management of such business of the borrower, which is relatable to the security or the debt.

¶58

(c) appoint qny person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor,'

¶59

(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquirecl any of the secured assetsfrom the borrower andfrom whom any money is due or may beconte due to the boruower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sfficient to pqy the secured debt."

¶60

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

¶61

time to time) - for short 'the Rules' - lays down the procedure to be followed in taking

¶62

measure under S.13 of the Act in respect of demand notice, which reads as under:-

¶63

sA79t2022

¶64

"(l) The service of demond notice as referred to in sub-section (2) of S.l3 of the Act shall be made by delivering (including hand delivery) or tronsmitting at the place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the nolice or documenls on behalf of the borrower, actually and voluntarily resides or cqrries on business or personally works for gain, by registered post with acknowledgement due, addressed to the borrower or his agent empowered to accept the service or by speed post or by courier or by any other means of transmission of documents likefax message or electronic mail service:

¶65

PROVIDED that where aulhorised fficer has reason to believe that the borrower or his agent is avaiding the service ofthe notice or thatfor any other reason, the service cannot be made as aforesaid, the service shall be effected by affuing a copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building inwhich the borrower or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and also by publishing the contents of the demand notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernqcular language, having sfficient circulalion in that locality.

¶66

(2) lYhere the borrower is a body corporate, the demand nolice shall be served on the regisrered ffice^{or anyof the branchesof such bodycorporateas specified} under sub-ntle(l).

¶67

(3) Any olher notice in writing lo be served on the borrower or his agent by authorised oficer, shall be served in the same manner as provide in this rule.

¶68

(4) I(here there ore more lhan one borrower, the demand notice shall be served on each borrower.

¶69

O^{Thedemand notice may invite attention} of the borrower to provisions of sub-section (8) of S. I 3 of the Act, in respect of time available to the borrower, to redeem the secured a.rJe/s. "

¶70

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

¶71

thq possession notice and it reads thus:-

¶72

"(l) lYhere the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised fficer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix-lV to these rules, to the borrower and by a/fixing the possession nolice on lhe outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property.

¶73

(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (l) shall ctlso be published, es soon as possible but in any cqse not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulotion in that locatity, by the authorised oficer.

¶74

(2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic ntode of service, in addition to the modes presuibed under sub-rule (l) and sub-ntle (2) of rutle 8."

¶75

Annexure Bl is the demand notice dated 31.12.2016 issued under S.13(2)

¶76

of the Act by the l't defendant authorised officer of the Federal Bank Limited addressed to the applicants (in the alternative address also) calling upon them to discharge the debt amounting to the sum of <2,05,60,344l- under rent securitisation loan limit of {200 lakhs availed on 28.08.2015 under loan account No.11897600002154 as on 28.12.2016 within sixty days from the date of receipt of such notice. It was stated therein that they have defaulted repayment of the aforesaid loan in violation of the agreed terms and the account became non-performing asset on 30. 11.2016 as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of

¶77

¶78

Though the applicants have contended that no notice prior to the classification of ::"

¶79

sA7912022

¶80

the account as non-performing asset was issued to them, they could not point out any provision of law or precedent for the same. The provision of law is silent about such a notice. The attention of the borrowers was invited therein to the provision under subsection (8) of S.13 of the Act in respect of the time for redemption of the secured assets. Annexure B1 notice takes care of the details of the amount payable by the borrowers and the details of 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 therein. The endorsement at the beneath of Annexure Bl notice shows that a copy of the same had been personally delivered to the applicants on 02.01 .2017.

¶81

In the above circumstances, the applicants are duly served by Annexure B1 demand notice. Annexure 82 is the possession notice dated 03.07.2017 issued to the applicants by the authorised officer of the defendant company under S.l3(4) of the Act taking possession of the secured asset in respect of the loan availed by them. The photocopies of postal envelopes appended to Annexures 82 shows that the said notice sent to the applicants by registered post was returned un-served as unclaimed, despite repeated intimations by the postal authority. Though they submitted that they had provided the alternative address, no such proof thereof has been produced before the Tribunal. They have also no case that they had made any alternative arrangement with the local post office for collection of any registered article in their absence at the residence. In the above circumstances, they are deemed to be served. Annexure 83 shows that the said notice had been affixed on the front door or at a conspicuous place of the property. Annexures 84 and 85 are the extracts of the publication of Annexu re 82 published respectively in English in the New Indian Express and in Kannada in the Kannada Prabha dailies dated 06.07.2017. Annexure 86 produced by the I't defendant is a copy of the final order dated 04.05.2022 in IA No.1437l20l8 in D No.265712018 (lR No.226912018) wherein the 2nd applicant had challenged Annexure B2 possession notice dated

sA79t2022

03.07.2017. It is recorded therein that the applicant and her husband, who are borrowers have personally acknowledged the receipt of the copy of demand notice dated 31.12.2016 issued by the respondent bank under S.l3(2) of the Act. It is also recorded therein that the applicant was deemed to be served with Annexure 82 possession notice which was affixed and published as per law. In the above circumstances, the contention of the applicants regarding the service and delivery of Arurexure Bl demand notice and Annexure 82 possession notice is not sustainable under law and the Tribunal finds that the l't defendant has delivered all such notices in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the contentions raised in contra by the applicants is only false. The applicants could not disprove the evidences adduced by the I't defendant or rebut the presumption of deemed service. In the above circumstances, this Tribunal does not find any force in the contention of the applicants regarding nondelivery of Annexures Bl and 82 notices and this Tribunal declares that the I't defndnat delivered such notices in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶86

Yet another contention raised by the applicants is that Ld CMM passed the impugned order authorising the I't defndnt to take physical possession of the same whereas the l't defendant is not an officer subordinate to him to take physical possession of the secured assets and the said adverse order was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the applicants.

¶87

Annexure Al (Annexure 89) is a copy of the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl Misc No.2l3012020. A perusal of the same shows that the applicants contested the proceedings and filed statement of objections, which were duly considered while passing the impugned order. Paragraph (3) of the aforesaid order reads as below:-

¶88

¶89

"The respondents through lheir advocate Jiled objections to the petition contencling that the said application of petitioner bank is itself abuse of process of law as the respondents were not qt all informed

sA79t2022

of the notice of classification of NPA. The notice under S. l3(2) of the SARFAESI Acl is not duly served on the respondents. With these grounds, the respondents prayed to dismiss the^{pelition. "}

¶94

The provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder have been enacted to enforce the security interest created over the secured assets by the banks and financial institutions without the intervention of the Courl or Tribunal. The law is harsh but the law is law. In the impugned order dated 04.05.2021, the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru having found that the secured^{asset falls} within^his jurisdiction and that the application filed under S.14 of the Act before him complied with all due procedures and having heard both sides with a detailed^{reasoningorder the said} authority has found that the^{petitionerwas entitled to the possessionof the securedasset.} Further it was observed by the said Court that^the said^{Court was having no jurisdiction to} entertain or decide the objections raised on behalf of the^{respondents.In the above} circumstances, the applicants cannot^{contend that they were not heard before passing of} the impugned order.

¶95

. S.14 of the Act deals with the role of the^{Chief MetropolitanMagistrateor} the District Magistrate to assist^{the securedcreditorin taking possession of the secured} asset. The further^proviso to^{clause (b)} of^{sub-section(l) of S.14 of the Act says that on} receipt of the affidavit from the authorised^{officer, the District Magistrateor the Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case^{may be, shall after satisfying the contentsof the} affidavit pass suitable orders for^{the purposeof taking possession of the secured assets} within a period of thirty days from the^date of^{application.The statutedoes not} contemplate an adjudicatory order to^{be passed by the Magistrateor to consider the} application as in a^{judicialprocess.The Chief Judicial Magistrate is not empoweredwith} ;u.iraictiorr,^{power andauthority to look into the evidence andadjudicate upon the matter} in dispute between the^{parties except assistingthe securedcreditor in taking physical} possession of its secured asset even^{with police assistance,if needed.}

sA79t2022

The Hon'ble High Court of^{Keralain Catholic S)trian Bank Ltd v Orma} Marble World [reported in 2018^{(3t KLT SN 60} rc.No.67)J^{has held that in appropriate} cases the Chief Judicial^{Magistratecan dispense with notice to the debtorbefore} exercising his powers under S.14, and^{the relevantportion reads as belorv:-}

¶101

"Il/hile dealing with the secured creditor's u,ritten reques! under S. 14 of the Securitisation^Acl, the Chief Judicial Magistrate^{need not give notice to or hear lhe borrowct'orany pcrson in possessionof} the secured asset. Coupled^{with lhe circumslances underv'hich'prior'nolice could be dispensed with,} even the hypothecation agreement^{has dealtwith this contingency.In} fact,^{the debtorsin lhatogreement} hqve waived their right to^{nolice. Civenlhe consensualproceduralmechanisnt agreedto between lhe} parties, I reckon this is afit case, inwhich^{the learned CJM coulddispense wilhnotice to lhe bomowers."}

¶102

' 23. No notice to the borrower^{is contemplatedunderS.14of the Act. In the} above facts and circumstances^{of the case and in view of the law enunciatedas above,} this Tribunal is of the firm^{view that the ground raised by the applicantsto show that the} impugned order dated 04.05.2021was^{passed without affording an opportunityof being} heard to them is not sustainable^{in the eye of law and it is only idle for them to hang on} such bald defence.

¶103

It is also contended^{by the applicants that the I't defendant is not an officer} subordinate to the Additional CMM^{to take physical possessionof the securedassetsand} hence appointing him to take^{physical possessionis not in accordance with the provisions} under S.14 of the Act^{and hence the order is bad.}

¶104

The words'officer subordinate'in^{S.l4(lA) are not to be understoodas} 'officer subordinate in^{service'. Sub-section(2) of S.14 of the Act empowersthe Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate or^{the District Magistrate,for the purposeof securing} compliance with the^{provisions of sub-section( l} )^{of S. l 4 of the Act to take or cause to be} taken such steps and^{use or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be} necessary. The l't defendant^{is certainlyan officersubordinateto the ACMM court and} the words employed^{in S.14(1A) of the Act are not to be understood as meaning an} officer subordinate in^{service.The 1't defendant exercising such functionunder S.14(1A)}

¶105

¶106

Act is only discharging^{his duty as an officer subordinateto the said Courtpresided} :::.

¶107

sA79/2022

¶108

¶109

by the ACMM. Therefore, the contention of the applicants to the effect that the l't defendant is not an officer subordinate in service to ACMM and hence incompetent to take physical possession is only to be rejected. The ACMM courl is competent and empowered to appoint him for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Taking over possession of the secured asset and handing over the same to the creditor bank is nothing but a ministerial act of the 1't defendant on behalf of the said Courl. In the above circumstances, this Tribunal does not find any infirmity in appointing so.

¶110

,^{26.In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the} discussions as above, it is found that the recourse taken by the l't defendant under subsection (a) of S.l3 of the Act by virtue of Annexure Al (Annexure 89) order dated 04.05.2021passed by the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl Misc No.213012020 under S.l4 application is in accordance r,vith the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and this Tribunal declares so. Therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the ltt defendant is entitled to continue with the proceedings pursuant to Annexure Al (Annexure 89) order dated 04.05.2021 for recovery of its secured debt by enforcing its security interest over the SA schedule secured asset.

¶111

27 . In the result, SA is dismissed. IA No.69l2 022 is closed. The l't defendant is permitted to resume further proceedings pursuant to Arurexure Al (Annexure 89) order dated 04.05.2021. No costs.

¶112

Communicate copy of this final order to both parties as provided in subsection (7) of S.17 of the Act r/w R.l6 of the Debs Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,

¶113

1993 (as amended from time to time).

¶114

[Digtated^{to my PAdirectly on the computer, correctedandpronounced by me in the openTribunal} on this the ]dh day ofNovember, 2023J

¶115

\ Y'\

¶116

['IMTIAZ^ALI ] PRESIDING OFFICER

APPENDIX

Applicant's Exhibits

Witnessforthe	applicant	Nil
Witnessfordef	endant	Nil
AnnexureA1	04.05.2021	Photocopyofthe orderpassedbytheXXXIIAdditional Chief MetropolitanMagistrateinCrlMiscNo.2l3012020 (alongwithcertified copyoftheapplicationfiledby rheI't defendant underS.l4 oftheAcr)
AnnexureA.2	26.11.2021	Photocopyofthe orderpassedbytheHon'ble HighCourt ofKarnatakainWP(C)No.1173412021(GM-RES) Defendant's Exhibits
AnnexureB1	31.12.2016	Photocopyofthe demandnoticeissuedunder S.13(2)ofthe Actbythel'tdef'endantas againsttheapplicants calling uponthemtodischargethedebtof<2,05,60,3441-due under the rentSecuritisationloanaccount No.11897600002154withinsixtydaysfrom thedateof receiptofsuchnotice
Annexure82	03.07.2017	PhotocopyofthepossessionnoticeissuedunderS.l3(a)of theActby thel'tdefendantinrespectoftheschedule immovable property (along witl'r photocopyofthe retumed postalenvelopes)
Annexure 83		Photocopyofthepliotographfor affixtureofAnnexure82
Annexure84	06.07.2017	Photocopyofthe extractofthepublicationofAnnexure82 inEnglishintheNew IndianExpressdaily
Annexure85	06.07.2017	PhotocopyoftheextractofthepublicationofAnnexure82 inKannadainthe Kannada Prabliadaily
Annexure86	04.05.2022	Photocopyofthefinalorderpassedby this TribunalinIA No.143712018inDyNo.265712018(lRNo.2269l2018)
Annexure87	13.02.2020	PhotocopyofCrlMiscNo.213012020filedbythe I't defendant before theXXXIIAdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Annexure88	13.02.2020	Photocopyoftheaffidavitaccompanying Annexure87
Annexure89	04.05.2021	PhotocopyoftheorderpassedbytheXXXIIAdditional ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate, BengaluruinCrlMisc No.213012020
AnnexureB10	26.11.2021	Photocopyofthe orderpassedbytheHon'ble HighCourt ofKamatakainWP(C)No.l1734l20Tt(GM-RES).
AnnexureB11		Photocopyofcasestatusdownloadcdfromthe websiteof theHon'bleHighCourl ofKamataka
Annexure B12		Statementofaccountforthe periodfrom01.08.2015to 18.11.2018inrespectofaccount No.11897600002154

¶121

¶122

*ou,,Y$"0;:.,.,.

¶123

/.\ ScheAute to SAT7/2022

¶124

¶125

SCHEDI'I,ED PROPERTY

¶126

All that piece and paicel of^{immovable ProPertypropertyadmeasuring} 24oO sq. ft. together with building^{and all improvements thereon, bearing} Municipal No.34, having^{PID No.27-99-24situatedat Sirur Park Road,} She shadripuram, Bangalore -^560020.

¶127

PRESrlxi::,.,.

¶128

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBLINAL- 1,} KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶129

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALT PRESIDING OFFICER

¶130

Dated the 16tl'day of November,2023

¶131

SECURITISATION APPLICATION^{NO. 79 OF 2022}

¶132

Between B Pattabhiram Singh, S/o Muni Balaji Singh, 34, Sirur Park Road, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560020 and another. And The authorised otlicer, The Federal Bank Limited, Loan Collection & Recovery Department Bangalore^Division, 4,2nd Cross, CSI Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560027 and another.

¶133

...APPlicants

¶134

Defendants

¶135

FINAL ORDIIR \ tb^rt9b

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh v. Federal 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

Uco Bank versus Ms T D Enterprise

State Bank of India versus Jagriti Dubey

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sandhya Sanitary and Others

Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

Ms Stark Industries versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)

The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. versus S. Harpal Singh Dutta