Allowed

Mrs D Umadevi v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

DRT18 Dec 2024SA/136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securities application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal quashed a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) by the housing finance company. The notice was quashed as illegally arbitrary since the respondent failed to comply with the Act's provisions and was absent despite opportunities to file a reply and produce documents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession notice dated nil issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is quashed. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh following the Act and Rules.

Mrs D Umadevi versus Aptus Value Housing Finance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS REC()VERY TRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 STFT DAY OF DECEMB ER, 2C.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 136/2C22

¶5

1.Mrs.D.Uma Devi, W/o Veerprakash Singh, Aged 62, Occ:house wife, H.No.13-1-tr3slA/t,

¶6

Mangalhat, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad-SOo 006.

¶7

Mr.DeepavaleVeerprakash Singh, S/o Rooplalsingh, Aged 65 years, Occ:business H.No.13-1-1t33/All,

¶8

Mangalhat, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad-sOO 006.

¶9

Mr.Deepraj Singh, S/o Veerprakash Singh,

¶10

Aged 35, Occ:business,

¶11

H.No. 13- 1- 71331 Al t,

¶12

Mangalhat, Upper Dhoolpet,

¶13

Hyderabad-sOO 006

¶14

4.Mr. TakurJithendra Singh, S/o Shivlal Thakur, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, H.No. 13-2-390 I 6 I A, Rahimpura,

¶15

Puranapul, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad-sO0 006.

¶16

Mr.Venkatesh, Aged 55 years, Occ:business, No.14-3- 146l/ 1, Goshamahal, Nampally, Begumb azar, Hyderabad-sOO 012.

¶17

Hyderabad-sOO 012. icants Versus f'.s l.Aptus Value Housing Finance Ltd.,i 88, Doshi Towers 205, i 1 0 0EC 2il2{ Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, I Chennai-600 010.

¶18

Aptus Value housing finance India Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, GHMC No.7- 1-392 I 1O 1&1 18, 3.dfloor, Flat NO.3OI /A, Sri Sai GovardhanKunj Apts., SR Nagar Main road, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad-SOO O38.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent No.l

¶21

: Sn Umesh Singh : Sri T. Siniuas

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1' The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.nil issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant No.1 is borrower and Applicants No.2 to 5 as co-borrowers availed credit facilities to a tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and top of loan of Rs.3,00,0ool- in the year 2orr and the Applicant No.1 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Due to covid-19, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and the Respondent classified the loan account as NpA. All of a sudden, the Respondent affixed a copy of possession Notice dt.27.os.2o22 on the schedule property u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking possession of the schedule property. In fact, the Respondent has not issued u/s l3(2) of the Act and the impugned possession on the Applicants nor published in two daily newsBgpers. Hen the SA.

¶25

1 0^{0E[ zut}

¶26

¶27

sri T. srinivas, advoeate filed vakalat for Respondents, butthere was no representation and not liled counter and reply even after giving several opportunities and hence the right of filing Reply by the Respondents was forfeited.

¶28

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

¶29

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶30

whether tLrc Applicants haue estabrisLrcd. any ualid ground.s for setting aside the Possession notice dt. nil issued" bg the Respondent against the schedule property,?

¶31

it) To what relieft

¶32

Point No.(il

¶33

'l'he Applicants filed the present sA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule propert5r, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and producing necessary material documents to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the 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 Rules, 2oo2 ssession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act, I hold that the e a case for quashing the measures initiated by inst the SA schedule property under the plos"6ggsffitrre SATRPAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, 1I^u , ;i

¶34

the SA is liable loSpifillowed.

¶35

'S;;1','j'

¶36

Polnt,No,(ll):-

¶37

In the result, SA 136/2O22 is allowed.

¶38

Accordingly, the impugned possession Notice dt.nil issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is 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.

¶39

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

¶40

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed. bg her, corrected., signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the lBthdaA of December, 2024).

¶42

(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

1 I oEC zml

Mrs D Umadevi v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs D Umadevi v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika

M/S . Uco Bank versus M/S. Vanitha Jyothi Mahila Sangam

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Enterprises

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Sugyam Vittal

City Union Bank Limited versus Avanthi Agro Agencies