Allowed

Catherine Paul Boyapalli v. Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd.

DRT7 Oct 2024SA/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application maintained under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's challenge against the Respondent's Sale Notice. Ruling exparte against the absent Respondent, the Tribunal quashed the impugned Sale Notice and fixed auction date, directing the Respondent to proceed afresh after complying with statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Notice dated 03.01.2024 issued by the Respondent fixing the auction date on 19.01.2024 is quashed.

Catherine Paul Boyapalli versus Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.15,/2c.24

¶5

Smt.Catherine paul Boyapalli, W/o Santosh paul E}., Aged 66 years, Occ:business, R/o 1-3/ t, St. pauls High school, l1mur^{Mandat, Mamidipally,} Nizambad, Telanagana--S 03224.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Tersus

¶8

l.Varthana Finance p.Ltd.,

¶9

(formerly known as M/s Thirumeni Finance Pvt.Ltd.,),

¶10

Regd. Oflice : SBC-110, Varasiddi,

¶11

3.d floor, Outer Ring Road,

¶12

_^{ServiceRoad,3rd Block, HRBR} Layout, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore-560043

¶13

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶14

Varthana Finance p.Ltd.,

¶15

(formerly known as M/s Thirumeni Finance Pvt.Ltd.,),

¶16

Finance Pvt.Ltd.,), I I ltT lfi)t Branch Office: H.No. 1-3_303/40, 2,d floor, f3vi^{rt_1zg pG Road, Sindhi bolony} Above Urban Kissan, Sec.bad_So0 b03.

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant Respondents

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1' The Applicant fired the present Securitisation Apprication u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the Sale Notice dt.o3.o r.2o24 issued by the Respondent

¶20

sA 75/2024

¶21

fixing the auction of the schedule property on 19.01.2024 and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶22

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent to develop their Educational institutions against the mortgage of schedule property. It is submitted that due to loss in business and Covid_19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Respondent classified the loan Account as NpA. The Respondent failed to follow Rule g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002 in taking possession of the schedule property. Further, the Respondent did not serve 3o days Sale notice u/s g(6) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2OO2 and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent has not published the sare Notice dt.03.0 1.2024 in two daily newspapers and the reserve price fixed against the schedule property is very low as per the market value. Hence the SA.

¶23

¶24

Mr. Sravan Kumar, Advocate though undertaken to file vakalat for Respondent, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent was set exparte.

¶25

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and perused the material brought on record.

¶26

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶27

Whether the Applicant has establisled any ualid. ground. for

¶28

setting aside the Sale Notice dt.03.01.2024 iisued bg the

¶29

Respondent against the

¶30

ii) To what relief?

¶31

sA 75/2024

¶32

Polnt No.ft)

¶33

6' The Applicant Iiled the present SA cha,enging the Sale Notice dt.03.10.2024 issued by the Respondent fixing the auction on 19.O1.2024 against the schedule propert5r. But, the Respondent who

¶34

invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed

¶35

thereunder in issuing the Sale Notice dt.03.O 1.2024 by fixing auction 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 Repry and materiar documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in issuing the Sale Notice dt.03.0 1.2024,I hold that the Applicanthas 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.

¶36

Polnt No.llilt

¶37

In the result, SA lS/2024 is allowed.

¶38

Accordingly, the impugned Sare Notice dt.o3.or.2o24 issued by the Respondent fixing the date of auction on 79.Ol.2O24in respect of the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh e property to recover their dues by duly foltoyift f SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.^'J. u 07ocl^,nl : It ..,I

¶39

sA 75/2024

¶40

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

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the Priuate secretary, transcribed ba her, corrected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this tlle ihdaA of Octoteri ZOZ'Si

¶43

sd/(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

s
,:N
0 7 0cT ,tDl

¶45

ld.Bqt$ttr oir.t,^xvnrRrBlo'.

¶46

Catherine Paul Boyapalli v. Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Catherine Paul Boyapalli v. Varthana Finance Pvt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Veladi Bhadraiah versus State Bank of India

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Adepu Anuradha

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Shiva Prasad

Gopiraj Kothapeta versus Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.