Partly allowed

Media Multiples Marketing Solution Private Limited v. Axis Bank

DRT20 Dec 2023SA/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a securitization application filed by a borrower challenging the bank's commission warrant for physical possession due to an error in property extent. The court held the warrant erroneous and set aside the possession action, allowing the application partially.

What did the court decide?

The application is partly allowed by setting aside the action of the respondent bank in taking physical possession pursuant to the commissioner warrant dated 20.02.2023.

Media Multiples Marketing Solution Private Limited versus… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY^{OF DECEMBER, 2023}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No. 85 OF 2023}

¶5

M/s Media Multiples Marketing^{Solutions Private Limited} Rep. by its Director Mr.V.^Madhusudan S/o V, Suryanarayana,^{Aged about52 years} Situated at Plot No.57,^{Flat No.501} Cauvery's Vasanth Vihar,^Sundernagar Hyderabad, Telangana-500018

...,...Applicant.

Versus

Axis Bank

Rep by its Authorized Officer Branch Office at Axis Bank^Ltd Retail Asset Centre D. No.5-2- 183/ 184 3'd Floor, R.P, Road Secunderabad Branch

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶11

:Sri D. Raghavulu :Sri N. Sudarshan

¶12

-:9-RD-E-B:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Application u/s.17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction} of^{FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002 (hereinafter"the Act" for} short) to set aside all further^{proceedingsof the respondentbank} including taking^{physical possession} of^{application schedule property} pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 20.02.2023ⁱⁿ Crl'MP No.101/2023 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan^Magistrate, Owo

¶14

Zof4

¶15

sA No.8s/2023

¶16

Hyderabad in pursuance of possession notice dated 19.04.2018 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002.

¶17

The brief facts of the case as per averments of the application are; that the applicant availed cash credit facility of Rs.75,OO,OOO/- in the year 2010 for its business purpose against mortgage of schedule property as security and had been paying instalments regularly. Due to unfavourable conditions in its media business, the applicant company suffered financial hardship despite of which it continued to pay interest amounts. A substantial repayment of Rs.6g,0O,O00/- was made till March, 2017. Without any prior notice, on 23.04.2018 applicant got to receive possession notice dated 19.04.2018 for an amount of Rs.78,71,200.50 ps. The paper publication of possession notice was handed over on 05.06.2018 when officials of respondent bank showed up and demanded to hand over vacant possession of the property. sA No.22312018 filed by the appticant cha enging the possession notice dated 19.04.2018 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2022. Without considering the payments and requests, the respondent bank obtained orders in Crl Mp No.101/2023 for taking vacant possession through advocate commissioner. The account was not NPA as per RBI guidelines. The description of the property in Crl.MP is wrong. The demand notice and possession notice were not served on applicant, possession notice was neither affixed nor published. Without following the rules, the respondent bank is proceeding against the property and hence this SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement stating, inter alia, that the applicant earlier filed sA No.22312019 challenging the possession notice dated 19.04.2018 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.tL.2022. The applicant cannot raise same issues once again in this SA. The respondent bank approached learned CMM by

dw^'o

3 of 4

sA No.85/2023

filing Crl.MP No.101/2023 under Sec.14 of the Act and^obtained commissioner warrant for taking^{physical possession.} One^Jaladurgam Ramachandrudu claiming to be tenant in schedule^{propertyalso filed} SA No.32412018 which was also dismissed by^{the Tribunal vide order} dated 18.11,2022 and this is the third round of^{litigation.The present} SA is filed only to drag on the^proceedings and^{hencethe sameis} liable to be dismissed,

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and^{learned counsel for} the respondent bank. Perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶25

5, During the course of arguments, learned^{counsel for the} applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent bank^reiterated their respective version as in the application and^{reply statement.}

¶26

Now, the^points that arise for consideration are;-

¶27

(i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^ground to set aside the action of the respondent bank^{for taking} physical possession of SA schedule property in pursuance of possession notice dated 19'04'2018 issued under Sec.13(4) of the SARFAESI^Act?

¶28

(ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No.(i):-

¶30

Admittedly the applicant earlier filed SA^No.223/20L8 challenging the^possession notice dated^{19'04'2018 which was} dismissed on merits, Hence none of^{the contentions regardingservice} of demand notice or^possession notice^{can be entertained in this} application once again. N.OO

N.OO

4of4

SA No.85/2023

As regards action of respondent bank in^{taking physical} possession of SA schedule property, the applicant specifically contends that the description of^{property is wrong.} I^havecompared the schedule of^property stated in the^{possessionnoticedated} 19.04.2018 and commissioner warrant dated 20.02.2023.^{The extent} of^property is stated as 1900 sft. in^{possessionnotice whereasit is} stated as 2900 sft. in the commissioner warrant. This is an^error apparent on the face of the commissioner warrant.^Therefore, I^am constrained to hold that the respondent bank cannot^proceed to^take physical possession with an erroneous notice. Accordingly, SA deserves to be^partly allowed to the extent of taking^physical possession pursuant to commissioner warrant dated 20.02.2023.

¶35

Point No.(ii):

¶36

In the result, SA is^partly allowed by setting aside the action of the respondent bank in taking^{physical possession} of SA schedule property pursuant to commissioner warrant dated 20.02.2023 issued in Crl.MP No.101 of 2023.

¶37

However, this order does not^preclude the respondent bank to take further measures afresh in accordance with law.

¶38

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

¶39

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th doy of December,2023).

¶40

fiS'@ ld.affiesxwAR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Media Multiples Marketing Solution Private Limited v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Media Multiples Marketing Solution Private Limited v. Axis Bank

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sainulabdeen versus Authorized Officer

Joy Abraham versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Ram Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Avinash Chandrasekar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Narayanaswamy H.V.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Raghavendra Technologies