Allowed

Ms Umarani Commision Agent v. Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative

DRT6 Dec 2024SA/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. entrusted with hearing an application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act challenging physical possession proceedings required under Section 14. Due to Respondent's failure to file a reply or justify action, and lack of material evidence for compliance, the Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the measures, permitting fresh proceedings following statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned measures for taking physical possession under Section 14 SARFAESI Act are quashed; Respondent at liberty to proceed afresh following Act and Rules.

Ms Umarani Commision Agent versus Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY oF DECEMBER, 2C24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 11c/2c24

¶5

1.M/s UmaraniCommission Agent Prop : ThummollaRajaram, S/o Rajanna, R/o H.No.l-2-lgg, Battigalli Bhainsa-s040O 1. Also at: ThummollaRajaram,

¶6

S/o Rajanna,

¶7

Shop: Gandhi Gunj, market yard,

¶8

Bhainsa-s04 103.

¶9

KanollaSandesh, S/o Poshetty, H.N o.3-2-T S,

¶10

Kisangally, Bhainsa-504 1 03.

¶11

District: Nirmal, Telangana ... Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Authorized Officer OmprakashDeora people,s Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Hingoli (Multi State bank), Adilabad branch. K ... Respondent -.* 7* . d.$ .it^{</sup> Counselfor the Appl, rfs.+ h* Sridhar Respondent 0 5;; \I,I '-',I:P{i3}/ HYDI 1. rhe Applicants n,.oii;i* Application uf s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble collector and District Magistrate, Nirmaldt.2l.o2.2o24 in F.No.D 11227 /2004 and to set aside the same as illegal and void.}

¶14

sA 110/24

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant No.1 availed business loan from the Respondent Bank and the Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor. It is submitted that due to Covid-19, thelstApplicant could not pay some instalments and the loan account has been classified as NPA. The Respondent without considering the request of the lstApplicant for settlement of the loan, proceeded under Section 14 of the Act,2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property without following the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rule s, 2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶16

3' The Respondent in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent was set exparte.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶19

i) Whether the Applicants haue established any ualid. ground.s for challenging the measures initiated. by the Respond.ent for taking

¶20

phgsical possession of the SA schedule property pursuant to the orders dt.2t.02.2024 in F.No.D I 1227 12004 issued by the Hon'ble collector and District Magistrate, Nirmal?

¶21

iil To what relief?

¶22

Point No.(il

¶23

The Applicants filed the present sA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property. the Respondenfwho invoked the SARFAESI proceedings property, failed to justify their action by filing ry^material documents to prove that they ha visions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed tfr$rfiff$ 718$-ite $ ing against the

¶24

sA 110/24

¶25

secured asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Ruies, 2oo2 while proceeding against the secured asset for taking physicar possession uls 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the sA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the sA is liable to be allowed.

¶26

Point No.(tl):-

¶27

¶28

In the result, sA rrol2o24 is allowed. Accordingty, the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the secured asset under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 pursuant to the orders dt.2r.o2.2o24 in F.No.Dr/222 l2oo4 issued by the Hon'ble collector and District Magistrate, Nirmalare hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the sA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules thereunder.

¶29

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

transcribed bg her, corrected., signed and pronounced bg
^":trx p,ndoA of Nouember, 2024).
., 4ly
a.
,t .d' sdl-
li!\e 0 6 0E[ ,mt r..* (G. coPrcHANDl
}I
oirli nmannBAD
"-W

Ms Umarani Commision Agent v. Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Umarani Commision Agent v. Omprakash Deora People Co. Operative

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

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Shaik Khaja Pasha

Indian Bank versus M/s. Gokul Brick Industry

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Dhanavath Balu Naik

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Susheela Authomotive

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Ganesh Rice Industries