Dismissed

Sri Shiva Sai Industries v. State Bank of India

DRT18 Jun 2024RA/8/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad disposed of a Review Application filed under Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Rules, 1993, challenging an order dismissing a Stay Application. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting a review, and dismissed the application praying no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application No. 8/2023 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sri Shiva Sai Industries versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE l BTH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

REVIEw APPLICATIoN No.8,/2o23

¶5

IN SA No.459/ZOt4

¶6

1.M/s Sri Shiva Sai Industries

¶7

(A regd. Partnership lrrm)

¶8

Sy.No. 1 257lA&E, Jeevantharaopally

¶9

Road, Mulugu village & Mandal,

¶10

Warangal District.

¶11

Rep. by its Managing partner

¶12

Sri M. Rajendra Prasad

¶13

Sri Martha Rajendra Prasad, S/o M.SambhaMurhty,

¶14

Aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 10-14&10-15,

¶15

Nallabellay (V&M),

¶16

Warangal District.

¶17

Smt. PallatiPramela,

¶18

W/o Sri P. Srinivas,

¶19

R/o 6-11, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Behind Bus Stand,

¶20

Nallabellay (V&M),

¶21

Warangal District.

¶22

Sri Martha Markendeya S/o M. Sambha Murthy, Aged 43 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 10-14&10-15,

¶23

Nallabellay (V&M), Warangal District.District.

¶24

Warangal District.District. i'*^ **
Versus
iF d5
l.State Bank of India,
MSME Branch, under Bridge Road, * 10JuHZgl{ :
Shiva Nagar, Warangal EJ
Rep. by its Branch Manager. .n -S;S,
:r&;;;r{W
2. State Bank Bank of India,India,

¶25

State Bank Bank of India,India, MSME Branch, under Bridge Road, Shiva Nagar, Warangal

¶26

Rev. Applicotion 8/2023

¶27

¶28

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶29

Takkalapally Narayana Rao, S/o Swamy, aged 489 years, Occ:business,

¶30

4.Smt.Takkalapally Vasanthalaxmi, W/o T. Narayana Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: house hoid, Resp. No.3&4 are R/o H.No.4-25, Ashok Nagar, Khanapur (M), Warangal Dist.

¶31

Smt. NagavellyAhaiya, W/o Ushaiah, aged 56 years, Occ:house hold, R/o Nallebelly(v&M), Warangal District.

¶32

M/s Sri Sai Sahasra Rice Tech, A partnership firm rep. by its Partner Mahender Rao (Auction purchaser) S/o Seetaram Rao, H.No. 18-226- 1 -4, Nerkonda Road, Narsampet, Warangal District.

¶33

KathiVenkateswarlu, S/o Kattaiah, Aged 46 years, Occ:business, H.No.5-1741 1, Model School Side, Pakhal Road, Narsampet, Warangal Dist. 8. Gundala Madan Kumar, S/o Narsaiah, aged 49 years, Medical Practitioner, H.No.1 l-22-465 I ql, Kasibugga, Warangal Dist.

¶34

Neela Srinivas, S/o Rajaiah, aged 40 years, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Behind Bus Stand, Nallabellay (V&M), Warangal District .. Respondents.

¶35

Counsel for the Smt. Ch. Vedauani. Counsel for {fi.tab\ Si G. Prabhakar Sharma Counsel for R ff$z^{to g} Si D. Raghatrulu Respondents to6 :.\ Exparte 1B JUN 202{

¶36

Rev. Applicotion 8/2023

¶37

-:ORDER:-

¶38

¶39

The present Review application is filed by the Applicants under Rule 5A of Debts Recovery Rules, 1993 r/w Section l9(1) ofRDB Act, 1993 r/w Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for reviewing the order dt.14.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in SA 459/2014.

¶40

.) The brief facts which are leading to liling of present Review Application are as follows:

¶41

The Review Petitioners herein filed SA 459 / 14 challenging the possession notice dt.02.04.2014 and Sale Notice dt.25.04.2014 issued by the Respondents No. 1&2 in respect of the application schedule property. Thereafter Respondents No.3 to9 are impleaded in the SA. This Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties and upon perusal of the record, dismissed the SA 459/ 14 vide orders dt. 14.1 1.2023.

¶42

¶43

Challenging the said order dt.14.1 1.2023, the Petitioners in SA filed the present Review Application contending that this Tribunal has not considered the amendment allowed to the grounds of challenge for a notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 issued by the Respondent Bank which is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. This Tribunal failed to frame proper issues in terms of the amended grounds of challenge and this Tribunal also has not considered the ground taken by the Applicants to the effect that the loan account of the Appiicants has not become NPA within the scope and definition of NPA u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶44

This Review Application is by the Respondents No.1&2 by filing counter affida that the grounds raised in th e Review appr ica gih i:.i i;fr" rulifu , tenable for review of the final order dt.t4.Il .Zbzs paSsda uy ttri"' Hon'ble Tribunal in SA 45g/14 and thereii$';o rnls&k!"dplEt.nt o1 lr'. face of the record. .; $. , ,.^',. .r,t:-'-') ,', ' ..:il;-:', - ..,-+..::.i-:--",;t,^{t; i1,,:r/} ---.'

¶45

Rev. Applicotion a/202i

¶46

Respondents No.7 to 9 filed separate^{counter by contendingthat there} is no mistake apparent on the^face of^{the record to considerthe} Review Application and if the^{Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of} this Tribunal, the Petitioners^{have to seek relief underSection 18 of} the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2^{beforethe Hon'ble DebtsRecoveryAppellate} Tribunal but not by way^{of a Review petition before this Tribunal'}

¶47

Heard arguments^{of the ld. Counsel for the Applicants, Respondents} No.1&2andRespondentsNO.Ttogandperusedthematerialbrought on record.

¶48

Now, the^point that^{arise for consideration is-}

¶49

Whether the Appticants^{haue establisledany ualid ground for} reuieuing the^{order dt.14'11'2023passedby this Tfibunalin SA} 459/ 2014?

¶50

During the course^{of arguments, Ld' Counsel for the Applicants and} Ld. Counsel for^{the Respondents No'1&2, 7 to greiterated their} respective^{versions as statedsupra'}

¶51

g. Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicants argued that this Tribunal has held rn} the impugned^{order dt.14.11.2023 tlrrat the Applicantsare expected} to submit their objections^{within 60 days but 6O days time is not} mandatory for^{giving reply by the RespondentBankto the objections} raised by the Applicants^{u/s 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act, 2002' In} support of the^{said contention,Ld. Counselrelied upon the judgment} of Hon'ble Apex^{Courtreported in (2022)2 SupremeCourtCases221} betweenArcePolymersP.Ltd.Vs.AlphinePharmaceuticalsP.Ltd.

¶52

that this Tribunal

¶53

1. Ld. Counsel for the^contesti and Respondents,

¶54

after considering^the dismissed the^{SA 459} l+ ,id. order dt.14.11.2;023^{and there is no} : 1q J,_,,r1r4^",,.

¶55

Rev. Applicotion 8/2023

¶56

error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the said order.

¶57

This Tribunal after considering the material available on record, dismissed the SA 459 114 vide order dt.14.11.2023 holding that the Possession Notice dt.02.O4.2014 issued u/s 13(4), Notice for Sale dt.2l .O4 .2024 issued under Rule 8(6), e Auction Sale Notice dt.01.09.2014 issued under Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 20O2 and the auction sale of Item No.l of the schedule properties conducted on 07.10.2O14 are legal and valid. In the instant case, the Applicants after receipt of the demand notice issued by the Respondents No. 1&2, submitted their objections to the said demand notice after lapse of 60 days but however, the Bank issued reply to the said objections. This Tribunal has not dismissed the SA on^the premise that the Applicants have not submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice^issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. But^{admittedly, Possession} Notice dt.02.o4.2o24 was issued beyond the^{period of 60 days from} the date of receipt of demand notice by the Applicants^{herein. So as} the Applicants have not paid the amount demandedⁱⁿ the^notice u/s 13(2) of the Act within 60 days, Respondents No.1&2^issued possession notice dt.02.04.2014 for taking possession of the schedule property. If the objections raised by the Applicants to the demand notice issued by the Respondents NO.1&2 are tenable, then it isopen for the Respondent Bank to withdraw the impugned^possession notice issued by them after lapse of60 days from the date of service of demand notice on the Applicants. But in the^present case, the Respondent Bank submitted their reply to the objections raised by the t Applicants after receipt ol and having found that the uuJssLrurrs r arr'cLr uy Fc.t.aPPrrc4:t> arE ; tenable, the Respondent uance of Possession Bank proceeded wit( further md,asures Notice dt.02.04.2014.

¶58

Rev. Applicotion 8/2023

¶59

t2. A perusal of the final order dt. 14.11.2023^makes it^{clear that this} Tribunal has considered all the^{contentionsraised by the Applicants} and rightly dismissed the SA 459 I 14^{and there is no mistakeor error} apparent on the face of the record^{warranting the review of the order} dt. 14.1 1.2023^passed in SA^{459/ 14.}

¶60

1J. So, considering all the circumstances, I^{am of the opinion that this} Tribunal has rightly expressed^its opinion^{on variouspoints raised} by the Applicants herein during the^course of^{arguments in SA} 459 ll4. So, I find no mistake^{or error apparent on the face of the} record warranting review of the^{order dt.l4.ll.2o23passed by this} Tribunal in SA 459/ 14. So there^{are no merits inthe Review} Application and the same is^{liableto be dismissed.Accordingly,this} point is answered against the Applicants and in^{favour of the} Respondents.

¶61

In the result, the^{present Review Application is dismissed.No order as} to costs.

¶62

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.}

¶63

(Dictated to the P.A, tfdnscribed bv her, coneded. signed and^{ptonounced bg mein theopetu courT otu thisthe 1&^} daV ofJune,2024).

¶64

sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

--srruMT\ ,.,ti;-t, tfyDEEdEAD,

Sri Shiva Sai Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shiva Sai Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. N.S. Vaishno Devi Developers India Private Limited.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Ram Constructions

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Balaji Fertilizers

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Pooja Samagri

Bank of India versus M/S. Svs Upvc Windows and Doors