Dismissed

Quality Metal Industry v. Hdfc Bank

DRT29 Apr 2024SA/119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application to set aside a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The court found no deviation from statutory procedure or Rules and held that the applicants failed to establish valid grounds to quash the notice or restructure the account contrary to RBI guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Quality Metal Industry versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

INTHEDEBTSREcovERYTRIBUNAL.IIATHYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS^{THE 29rH DAYOF APRIL',2024}

¶3

PRESENT:SH.RAMEsHwARKoTHE,B.Com,L.LB.(HonS.),M.4. PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

Securitization^{Application No'119 OF 2022}

¶5

Quality^{Metal IndustrY} Rep by its^{Managing Partner} Mohd. Shareefuddin S/o Mohd Faqruddin,^{Aged 65} Years Occ: Business,^{# 19-4-430I 5/3} labri ComPlex,^{Miralam Tank Road} Hyderabad

¶6

Modh. Shareefuddin Sri Virupaksha Naveen^ReddY S/o Mohd Faqruddin, Aged 65^years Occ: Business, # 19-4-4301 513 Jabri Complex, Miralam Tank Road Hyderabad

¶7

Versus

¶8

HDFC BanK Ltd Begumpet Branch Suryodaya Complex Begumpet, Hyderabad Rep by its Autho rized Officer

¶9

Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Appticants

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶12

:Sri A. Viay Kumar

¶13

:Sri kl. Srinivas Reddy

¶14

:ORDER;_

¶15

The Appli riled the present securitis or the su.r.it,'t-1::: rion App'| ica ri on u / s t7 En ro rcem ",, ", :::::,J i:,":r:lr i[ ]a st Acr, 2oo2(h".:',:::;:' ;'"'::,,uloo,

¶16

2ol4

¶17

SA No.119/2022 i

¶18

short) to set aside the possession notice dated 05.05.2022 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act against the SA schedute property.

¶19

The case of the applicar n brief, s that they "*,"J"u 11ff:i5ff:T ::H r:;:T:; respondent bank for expansion of business. fnougir regutar in payment of instalments, due t( covid-19 circumstances the applicants raired to service interest for crassified the toan account ", ^li;"1"J:';rI: ;::::::il"r;; RBI Circulars dated 01.01.2019 and issued demand notice dated 06.07.2022 u/s t3(2) to which objections were raised and also request was made to restructure the account as per RBI guidelines. without issuing repry u/s 13(34), respondent bank issued possession notice dated 05.05.2022 u/s 13(4) of the Act and pubtished the same. When the officials of respondent bank came to take physical possession of the property on 12.05.2022 applicants sought time some time. If the respondent bank proceeds further the family of the applicant shall be left with no shelter. Hence the SA.

¶20

The^{respondent bank filed replystatement denyingthe adverse} averments^{made in the applicationlt is further stated that as per} Governmentoflndia/ReserveBankoflndiaguidelinesduringcovid. 19, the^{respondentbank restructuredthe overdraftfacility and} extended^{to another 103 months fromOctober/November2020 and} moratorium^{of three monthswas also provided' However'the} d ef^a ti:: : . o,^,,.".,, ""0 Ti'J.",T^{:T::JJ: ;::11j':: jl} 2021.^{rhe loan account -t]_l'i;;;,;} time^{provided,the applicants} to september,^{2027'ln to-'-t"} ,n"^{roan account became NPA on} faired^{to make pavments} u/s ,".eived^a) S!.::lons 29.06.2021'^{The respondent borr} ""n^{n.. t''" -- "",} ,^r'W*

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

SA No.119/2022

¶23

13(3A). As there was no^{paymentas per demandnoticedated} 06.0r.2022, the^{possessionnotice datedo5.o5.2o22u/s 13(4)was} issued, served, affixed and^{published.The respondent bank has} scrupulously followed the^{procedure of law. As on 04.04.2023.there} is a due of Rs.50,88,065/-.^{Hence the sA is liableto be dismissed.}

¶24

Learned counsel for both^{parties reportedthat ordersmaybe} passed on merits.

¶25

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

¶26

(i) Whether the applicants made out any^{valid ground to} set aside the^{possessionnoticedated 05,05.022issued} under Sec.13(4) of the^{Act against the SA schedule} property?

¶27

(ii) To what relieft

¶28

Pe!nlLNsIi):-

¶29

There is absolutely no denial^{of availingloan, creation of} mortgage in respect of SA^{schedule property and committingdefault} in repayment. In fact, the applicant^{admitted these facts.}

¶30

The contention of the aPplicant^is that^{the respondent bank did} not apply the RBi Circular^{issuedduring Covid-19to his loan account} whereas the respondent bank affirms^{that the accountwas} restructured and moratorium^{granted as per RBI Circulars.This factis} not disputed by filing rejoinder^{or written arfumentshence the} contention deserves^no acceptance. 72tr't:l'1'-'" ')"

¶31

4of4

¶32

SA No.u9/2022

¶33

While contending that the respondent bank did not issue reply to objections to the demand notice under Sec.13(3A) of the Act, no such objections stated to have been issued by the applicants is produced. The material documents from pages 20 to 38 filed by the respondent bank along with reply statement sufficiently prove that the demand notice, possession notice were served on applicants and the possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and published in English and Telugu newspapers. Hence, I find no deviation of provisions under Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶34

The applicant utterly failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated 05.05.2022 and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Point No.(ii):

¶36

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending if any, stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the Web^portal.

¶38

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond prcnounced by me ih the open coutt on this the 296 ddy ol Aprit, 2024).

¶39

$r"*

¶40

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Quality Metal Industry v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Quality Metal Industry v. Hdfc 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

Similar cases

Anis Anvarbhai Ghanchivahora versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Mansi Manilala Rangani

Bank of Baroda versus Krishna Oil Industries

Deepak Prakashbhai Ramchandani Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Aishwarya Food Company

Canara Bank versus M/S Riddhi Jewellers