Allowed

Mr D Surender Babu v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

DRT14 Nov 2024SA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitisation Application challenging a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court quashed the notice due to alleged violations of statutory rules and lack of response from the respondent, permitting fresh proceedings while adhering to the Act.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice dt.23.03.2023 issued by the Respondent for sale of the schedule property is hereby quashed.

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE I 4TH DAYOF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.166/2023

¶5

Mr. D. SurenderBabu, S/o D. Narsimha,

¶6

Aged 53 years, Occ:pvt. Employee, R/o Flat -Gl, Arjun Apartments, Malani Colony, Tadbund, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Repco Home Finance Ltd Rep. by Authorized Officer Regd. Office: REPCO Tower No.33, North Osman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶12

: Sn ?. Sridhar Reddy

¶13

: Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant liled the present Securitisation Application u/s.^{17 of} the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets^and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2^(SARFAESI Act,²⁰⁰²⁾ challenging the Sale Notice dt.23.03.2]23 issued by the^Respondent fixing the auction of the schedule property on 03.05.2023and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶16

The averments made in brief, are that, the Applicant availed Ioan ndent and mortgaged the schedule prope *-*towards sedr.iritv of the id loan facilities and due to Covid- 19, the rnlicarlt a'^$oilffi fffilpuv sl instalments. All of

¶17

W,-sy

¶18

sA t66/23

¶19

a sudden, the Applicant came to know about the Sale Notice dt.23.O3.2O23 issued by the Respondent fixing the auction of the schedule property on 03.05.2023. The Respondent without issuing anynotices, directly proceeded for sale of the schedule propert5r which is illegal. The Respondent failed to follow Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Further, the Respondent hasnot followed Rule 8(6)&9(1) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as no separate notice u/r 8(6) was issued for redeeming the scheduie property. Hence the SA.

¶20

.).

¶21

The Respondent in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent was set exparte.

¶22

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶25

Whetlrcr the Applicant has established ang ualid ground for setting aside the Sale Notice dt.23.03.2023 bsued bg the Respondent against the schedule property?

¶26

i, To uhat relief?

¶27

Point No,ll)

¶28

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the provisions of SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI p the schedule property, failed to justify their acti d produce necessary material documents to 6 tha ey trictly followed the procedure laid down the provisions I Act and Rules framed thereunder w .o"&&"[0lgffil"t asset. The

¶29

sA 766/23

¶30

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 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 proceeding for sale of the schedule property, I hold that the Applicant has 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.

¶31

Point No.(lllt

¶32

In the result, SA 166l 2023 is allowed.

¶33

Accordingly, the impugned Sale Notice dt.23 .O5.2O23 issued by the Respondent for saleof 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.

¶34

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

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the Piuote Secretary, transcrtbed bg him, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the l4thdaA of Nouember, 2024).

¶37

sd/-

¶38

(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

rRUE GOPY
f[ s=\ffi
9Rt'1. HvoERtBAD.

Mr D Surender Babu v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr D Surender Babu v. Repco Home Finance 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

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Warehousing and Logistics

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gemes Spine and Pain Care

Karnataka Bank Limited, versus Smt. Kondapalli Indira

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dw Doors and Windows

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jay Ess Associate

State Bank of India versus Sri Bandi Kiran Kumar