Applicants challenged possession and demand notices under the SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the notices due to lack of a contrary reply from the Bank, without adjudicating the underlying dispute merits.
The Demand Notice dated 26.11.2021 and the Possession Notice dated 08.04.2022 are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE O I ST DAY OF DECEME R, 2O2g
PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.99,/2c.22
Applicants.
Versus
DCB Bank Limited, !,8 -2.- t22l?j, 2,d Floor, Jyothi Majesric, uanJara Hills, Hyderabad _ SOO 0i+. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent
Si R. Rajendra prasad.. Si C. Vishuanath.
-:ORDERi
- This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, challenging the Possession Notice dt.0g.04.2022, issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(4) of the said Act, 2OO2, in respect of the application schedule property.
SA.No.99/2022
of Rs.4,85,OOO/- and an amount of Rs.3,50,OO0/_ were sanctioned and after paying an amount of Rs.3,50,0O0/_ to State Bank of India for clearing an earlier loan and after deducting the processing fee, service tax, etc., an amount of Rs.4,60,O0O/- was disbursed to the Applicants and the Applicants were paying loan instalments of Rs.6,395/- and Rs.4,429/_ towards the loan accounts and the tenure of the said loans was 1g0 months and same were to be completed on 05.O4.2O21. While so, in the year 2010, the Respondent Bank herein has taken over the said roans from M/ s. citi Financial consumer Finance India Ltd., (City Financial) as per their own arrangement without any request or intervention of the Applicants and the Applicants have been paying the loan instalments to the Respondent Bank herein since then. The Respondent Bank has increased the interest rate and also the monthly instalments amount approximately to the tune of Rs. l10O/_. While so, the Respondent Bank issued loan recall letters dt.13.10.2021 and 22.09.2027 and thereafter, issued Demand Notice dt.26.tl.2021 u/s.t3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding the Applicants to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.3,68,629.07ps and Rs.S,24,52g.72ps. The Applicants sent reply dt.13.12.2o21 to the said Demand Notice disputing the amounts claimed by the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank has issued reply dt.23.12.2021, stating that it has taken over the loan accounts from M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., and claimed that the restructure of the loan was intimated to the Applicants and demanded to pay the total outstanding dues as claimed in its Demand Notice. The Respondent Bank in the name of restructuring, without the knowledge of the Applicants, have increased the loan amount and created a fresh sanction in the month of December, 20 10 and the Respondent Bank has ignored the payments made by the Applicants " lf rom 2006 to 20 1O l o . : ,Tr..).)e^--^-,rthp.'qhs- \s np ondent Bank having received the total as loan amounts, NPA in the month 4$e.afV"6f.u!\fied of t 11 the loan account of the Applicants 1. Further, the Respondent Bank ^A _!-? ^"n,,r",gPff,202 has issuedftht F6$"JJ3il" dt.oa.o4.2022, without following the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the SA.
SA.No.99/2022
- Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants. No arguments were advanced on behalf of the Respondent Bank.
- Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_
Whether the Applicants have established any valid grounds for setting aside the action of the Respondent Bank initiated under the provisions of the SARPAESI Act, in respect of the application schedule property?
Polnt No.l t
SA.No.99/2022
and Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Applicants.
Potnt No.(tt):-
- communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.
l1t?E'r::;:; tr;::::;{;,;Biranscribed by him, corrected, sisned and. pronounced. bs me in the open court on
sdl(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICEi
0 1 IEc ffitl
"n'RuE coP
(L.s{*4
afrr.L,ryrilia6Ir.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have established valid grounds for setting aside the action of the Respondent Bank initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act?
To what relief should be granted given the failure of the Respondent Bank to file a reply statement?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gorty Sai Lakshmi and Sri G. Mallikarjuna Sastry
DCB Bank Limited
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
