This tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice. It held that the bank followed statutory procedures including issuance of demand notice, hearing objections, and appropriate publication.
Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of.
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 RECOVERYTRIBUNAL *1 AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER,2C.24
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
SA.No.1A3,/2O22
Lasya Block, Poojitha Estates, Sunder Nagar, ESI, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038. ... Applicants
Versus State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery 2"dfloor, TSRTC buildi Commuters Amenity b* Bus Terminal compiex, Hyderabad-500 095 '?10[I zml ? Rep. by its Authorized 'cix dent Bank Counsel for the Applicants Prasada Rao. ffith.fw Counsel for Respondent
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action of the RespondentBank in issuing Possession Notice dt.20.06.2022 in respect of the schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicants availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the schedule properties but due to financial crisis, they could not repay the loan amounts dues. So the Respondent Bank declared the loan account of the Applicants as NPA and sent demand notice to one of the Directors of the Applicants company. Thereafter, the Bank issued Possession Notice dt.2O .06.2022 and took symbolic possession of the schedule properties. The Respondent Bank is not entitled to invoke the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without considering the financial condition of the Applicants. The applicants have not received demand notice and possession notice from the Respondent bank and hence the impugned possession notice is null and void. Hence the SA-
The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed various credit facilities from the Respondent bank against the mortgage of schedule properties default in repayment of loan outstanding dues t was classified as NPA as per d- the RBI guidelin nlh O.A.22l 12021 against the Applicants befi recovery of a sum of , 1 U,l iull + Rs. i ,25,61 ,468/ - thE said O.A. was'.r on 15.09.2022. The Respondent Bank flu/s13(2) of the SARFAESIAct
on 23.o3.2o22and the said notice was received by the Applicants and the Applicants issued reply dt.OS.O .2022 in response the said demand notice and to the said objections, the Respondent Bank issued reply notice dt. 18.04.2022. As the Applicants failed to comply with the demand notice, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.2O.O6.2O22 and the said notice was received by the Applicants. The said notice wasaffixed on the schedule properties and also published in English and Telugu daily newspapers on 26.06.2022. Thus, the Respondent Bankhas followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point JVo.(if :-
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
d possession notice and
&,m
the Bank has not followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
Potnt No.(tl):-
(Dctated to the P.A, transcibed bg her, conected., signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 21sdag of October, 2024).
sd/(G.q)Pr CHANDI PRESIDIITG OFFICER
ffi
i ttocl zul *i
,'a 5
' r"d#
T$,E COPY
%rk**ht'f-'*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicants have established any valid ground for setting aside the Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mourya Enterprises Rep. by Sri P.Jagadeeshwar Reddy
State Bank of India
Sri Gummadi GoPichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
