Dismissed

Ms Prius Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of India

DRT29 Nov 2024SA/146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, alleging defective service and publication. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined evidence of postal acknowledgments and newspaper publications. Finding that the bank scrupulously followed statutory procedures, the Tribunal dismissed the application and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside possession notice is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Ms Prius Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -^{1 AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 291"H DAY^{OF NOVEMBER,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDINGOFFICER}

¶4

sA.No. 146/2022

¶5

l.Mls Pirus Enterprises P.Ltd., Regd. Office at Flat No.304,

¶6

Vrjaya Apartments, Dharam Karan^Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 073

¶7

Rep. by its Director P.Eswar Reddy.

¶8

P. Eswar Reddy, Flat No.307, Venkateswara^Arcade, Power Nagar,Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶9

Kommincni Praveen kumar, F'lat No.201, Block-A, Sri Nilayam, Asian Manor, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 034.

... Applicants

Versus

Bank of India,

Rep. by its Authorized officer
5-8-659, Nampally Station Road,
Hyderabad-S0O 0O1. Respondent Bank
{;*
Counsel for the ue"sa Reddg.
Counselfor Resporuderut Nagesuara Rao
? .ORDER g N0l, ,02t
Reconstruction of
1.
Act,2O02
Bank in

¶14

sA14612022

¶15

issuing Possession Notice dt.27.O4.2O22 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

2. The averments made by the Applicants in brief are as follows:

¶17

The Applicant No.l is a registered company which availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank to a tune of Rs.250 lakhs and they are paying the instalments regularly butthe Respondent Bank issued the demand notice dt.O8.02.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 demanding the Applicants to pay an amount of Rs.I,02,93,143.84 ps. within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereafter the Applicants requested the Bank for regularizatron of the loan account but the Bank never shown any interest to consider the said request. Thcreafter on 24.O7.2022, the Respondent Bank issued Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the Act and the said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor aflixed on the schedule property and demand notice and possession notice are not served on all the parties. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed credit facilities from the Respondent bank and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan outstanding dues and So, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the RBI guidelines. The Respondent^Bank issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 08.02.2022 calling upon the Applicants to repay the entire outstanding dues and the said notice was served on$.g-.4pplicants and no objections^were -' "- ;' --':i''-a'' un47raised bv the Applican'";z "llll_ :i1'::lt:11:: failed to repay the tourvlolrrlou.?nf ffio.;Frt$ithin 6o days, the Bank was constrained to i:" Pos&#sion t'utiti;\ u/s 13(4) of the Act plicants through Regd. dt.27.04.2022 ",ra "J"t'the gi$ flq{fltb th . ;j 5'-,r^, .{

¶20

sA 146/2022

¶21

post. The said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published in Times of India and Prajashaktidaily newspapers on 28.04.2022. Thus, the Respondent Bank has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the schedule property and there are no violations. Thereafter the Respondent bank issued Sale Notice dl2LO7.2022 fixing the date of auction on 25.08.2022 and the said sale notice was published in daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. But in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal, auction could not be conducted in pursuance of the said sale notice and hence the said sale notice becomes infructuous.Accordingly Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

Heard both sides. Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶23

whether the Applicants haue established. ana ualid" ground" for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.27.04.2o22 issued. by the Respondent Bank against the schedule property?

¶24

To uhat relief ?

¶25

Point No.(if :-

¶26

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶27

The undisputed facts of the q Applicants availed credit facilities to a tune of Rs. pondent Bank against rysftre#rmtn the mortgage of schedu ffperty. Sre^is .o dispute regarding the fact that the Respo otice and possession T'uTt'mffts-"*I tA ^^+',t Wr,"#g

¶28

sAt4612022

¶29

notice to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said notice. But the contention of the Applicants is that some of the Applicants have not received the demand notice and possession notice and the said possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two newspapers. Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that the Bank has duly followcd the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice.

¶30

To substantiate their version, the Respondent Bank has filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 08.02.2022, th-e Bank issued demand notice to the Applicants and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the Applicants No.2&3 received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements but the demand notice addressed to the 1"t Applicant was returned, so the bank published the demand notice in Mana Telugu and Hans India daily newspapers on 17.02.2022. Along with the SA, the Applicants filed copies of demand notice and possession notice received by them. So in view of the publication of the demand notice in the newspapers, it can be deemed that there is service of demand notice on all the Applicants. The Applicants have not paid any amounts after receipt of the demand notice issued by the Respondent Bank. Hence the Bank issued possession notice dt.'27 .O4.2022 to the Applicants andthe said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent bank. As per the documents filed by the Respondent Bank, it is clear that the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers on 28.04. affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the the Bank. Hence in the circumstances, pondent Bank has scrupulously followed tlp .procedu.ftril?tfnlt"wn*rtlder the provisions of sA Kt''RF A t ESI sI Act a nd.,a Kulenutei p ,, ,"rorr2r#,N[Y#H""..;ji" 2UU2-r[ taKng posse$IPn o I ne f t i. sc nh edule property u/s 13(a) of tnetSennAESI Act, 2O0p$/rai.tgry, this point is t'io'hlur#9 ''- '11;r;;P'{j

¶31

sA14612022

¶32

answered in favour of the Applicants.

¶33

Respondent Bank and against the

¶34

Point No.(ii):-

¶35

In the result, SA 14612022 is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 29thdag of Nouember, 2024).

¶38

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

IF,UE,GOPY
(/^---( '
/(-
'-ni:ifr{l:*:r;^o ?4 lv lvu

Ms Prius Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Prius Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of India

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sri Baba Karthik Kalapatapu

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lmr Constructions

State Bank of India versus Sri Tumuluri Ravindra

Ms Maruthi Tubes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Md. Mohammad

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sanjeevani Industries