Dismissed

Shaik Mehaboob Pasha v. Union Bank of India

DRT27 Dec 2023SA/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, the applicant sought to set aside physical possession action taken by the respondent bank under SARFAESI Act. The court upheld the bank's actions regarding notice issuance and asset possession, dismissing the application on the merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shaik Mehaboob Pasha versus Union Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.84 OF ZOZ2

¶5

Sri Shaik Mehaboob Pasha S/o Shaik Abdul Razack Aged about 51 years, Occ:Business R/o H. No.9-88-B/ t2, Nagaram Keesara Mandal, Medchal District

¶6

.......Applicant"

¶7

Versus Union Bank of India Rep by its Authroized Officer Ghatkesar Branch, Ghatkesar

¶8

.......Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant :Sri D. Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent Bank :Sri Srinivasa Rao Chakrata

¶10

-:ORDER:-

¶11

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter "the Act" for short) to aside the action of the respondent bank in taking physical possession of SA schedule property in pursuance of possession notice dated 25.10.2021.

¶12

The case of the applicant as^per averments of the application, in brief, is that the applicant availed housing loan of Rs.35 lakhs from ,4rwu.,t*>n / / -''^1'-

¶13

2ol4

¶14

SA No'84/2022

¶15

respondent^{bank in 2014 against mortgageof SA schedule property'} Though he^{was regularly paying instalments'due to Covid-19} pandemic, there^{was overdue amount He paid Rs 15 lakhs to the loan} account.^{Without heeding to requestfor regularizationof account'the} respondent^{bank classifledthe accountas NPA The respondent failed} toservedemandnoticeandpossessionnotice.Thepossessionnotice was neither^{affixed on schedule property nor publishedin vernacular} language. Without^{followingdue procedure,the respondent bank} obtainedordersinCrl14PNo.6/2022fortakingphysicalpossession through advocate^{commissioner'Hence this SA'}

¶16

The^{respondentbank Rled reply statementstating that due to} default in^{making payment of instalments, the applicant was served} with overdue^{notice dated16.04'2016 and 28'042016 to whichhe} requested^{vide letter dated 30 04'2016 to grant timeAgain} respondent bank^{issued overdue notice on 06 03 2017and} 01.06.2017^{followedby severalnotices An NPA notice was issuedon} 02.08.2019 and^{legal notice.In spite of ample time giventhe} applicant did^{not comeforwardto clear the debt' The possession} notice dated^{13'10.2021was sent by post and publishedon} 25.10.2027.^{The applicant vide letterdated27} 't0^{'2021 promised to} clear the dues by^{10.11.2021 and hence he knew that loan account} became NPA. Thereafter^{30 days notice was issued'The applicant} failed to comply^{the conditional orderpassed in WP No 15242 of 2022} by the Hon'ble High^{Court for the State of Telangana.The applicantis} not entitled to any relief^{and hence SA is liableto be dismissed.}

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant^{reported that ordersmay be} passed based on record. Heard learned counsel^{for respondentbank} and^perused the^{material brought} -^{on record.} {rnr,' ;]:;':1-} ll

¶18

3ol4

¶19

5A No.84/2022

¶20

Now, the points that arise for consideration are;_

¶21

(i) Whether the applicants made out any vatid ground to set aside the measures initiated by the respondent bank in respect of SA schedule properties under the provisions of the Act, 2OO2 and Rules framed thereunder?

¶22

(ii) To what relief?

¶23

Point No.(i):-

¶24

Admittedly the applicant availed housing loan from respondent bank and committed default. The respondent bank issued a number of notices to applicant for clearance of overdue amount and the applicant addressed letters to respondent bank seeking time but failed to do so. The demand notice dated 02.08.2019 was personally received by the applicant. After issuing another legal notice providing another 10 days and intimation to take possession dated 13.10.2021, the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 25.10.2021. The copy of possession notice filed by respondent bank contains the signature of the applicant. The possession notice was affixed vide copy of photographs and published vide copy of newspaper clippings placed on record. The respondent bank is entitled to seek assistance under Sec.14 to take physical possession of secured asset.

¶25

In view of the foregoing observation, I find that the applicants utterly failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures initiated by the 1st respondent bank agalnst the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed. {./rr} ,\

4of4

SANo.84l2022

Point No.(ii):

B' In the resurt, SA fairs and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Consequenily, the Interlocutory Applications pending if any shall arso stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Typed to my dictotion by the pS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Vh doy of December, 2023).

¶32

:x/V.N (,/ {.ru

¶33

(RhilEsHwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICEI{

Shaik Mehaboob Pasha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shaik Mehaboob Pasha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus M/S Cosmic Retail and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Dharmendra Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Sushmandi Gupta and others versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mohd Muzafar Hussain

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v.Renuka