Applicant challenged bank's possession of mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal held bank failed to justify measures, lacked filing, and didn't comply with Act/Rules. Application allowed.
The application was allowed and the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the secured asset are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1zTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No. 163/2(U^24
Sri ArepulaYadagiri S/o A. Latchaiah, Occ:Doctor, R/o H.No.4- 12-70351 A, Sri Sai Towers, Plot No.7, Sy.No.280(old), 284 / 4(New), BaghHayath Nagar Village, Ward No.4, Block NO.12 GHMC, Hayathnagar-50O 07O
... Applicant
Versus
Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Authorized officer Situated at l-4-879 I 42 I6 I Al t, Opp.Surya Residency, Street No.8, Gandhinagar, Musheerabad, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.
... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicant Respondent bank
: Sri D.Raghauulu. : exparte
ORDER
The Applicant availed housing loan to a tune of Rs.75 lakhs from the Respondent bank against the mortgage of schedule property. Due to loss in the business, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Bank classified the loan account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines. Without issuing demand notice and possession notice, the Bank straightaway proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and So, the impugned Vacate Notice dt.18.04.2024issued by the Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of CJM, LB Nagar is illegal.Hence the SA.
Point No,(i)
produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The Bank 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 Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 while proceeding against the secured asset for taking physical possession luls 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank 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.
Point No.(iil:-
is order to the parties concerned.
her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open ,2024).
<sup>1- 0EC 2m sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER 0t'5ry
is:,',t;$'#ila:'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds to set aside the bank's measures for taking physical possession of the scheduled property.
Whether the debt recovery tribunal is justified in quashing the possession measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act due to lack of compliance by the bank.
What relief should be granted to the applicant regarding the impugned possession measures.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Arepula Yadagiri
Bank of Baroda
Gummadigopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
