The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank’s Section 14 SARFAESI proceedings for physical possession. The court held the bank strictly followed Section 13(2) and 13(4) procedures, rejecting the applicants’ claim of irregularity.
Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.
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 - I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1 gTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2C,24
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No. tAS/ZO2B
Aged 42 years, Occ:household, Plot No.2O, Sy.No.6 I / I / t,
.. Applicants
Versus
UCO Bank, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Adilabad branch, Bus stand road, Adilabad_SO4OO1.
... Respondent
Counsel ; Sn Srauan Kumar Ragi dent Bank : SmL K. Nandini Red.dg //#-{/tu ORDER '/i.- 1 g }EC n<sup>* 1,;i rhe Applicants fifdr the :.:r present Securitisation Application ufs.17 of r., ..":. itiJre :". l':' a-\ and '''.'-.;'''l'\ Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) the Respondent Bank in taking physical property through Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the orders of CJM, Adilabad in to declare the same as null and void.
sA 1.83/2023
2' The averments made by the Applicants, in brief, are that:
The Applicant No.2 is wife of 1"t Applicant and the Applicant No.l availed housing roan of Rs.16 rakhs and personal loan of Rs.3.50 lakhs from the Respondent Bank in the year 2016 and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. The 2ra applicant stood as guarantor to the said loanfacilities. The lstApplicant could not make some payments and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. But the RespondentBank without serving any demand notice, straightaway issued possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter the Respondent Bank initiated steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner issued notice dt.1g.05.2023 to the Appricants for vacating the schedule property pursuant to the orders of cJM, Adilabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 without following the due process of law and so, the said proceedings are liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.
Srdi,fu{:I;;
sA 183/2023
Applicants and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers on 15.11.2021 and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the Respondent Bankproceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing crl.M.P.No.77l2023 before cJM, Adilabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. when the Advocate commissioner appointed by cJM, Adilabad issued Notice dt.1g.Os.2023 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule propert5r, the Applicants filed the present sA. The Respondent Bank followed theprocedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding .,ls 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.
i) uhether the Appricants haue mad.e out any uarid. ground.s for setting aside the proceed.ings initiated bg the Respond.ent Bank fo'taking phgsicar possession of the sA schedure propertg pursuant to the orders of Ld".cJM, Ad.,abad in Crl.M.p.No.77/ 202S?
iil To what relief?
Point No.li):
*'f;^]m.,"oh}
ts of the case are that the l"tApplicant availed ' f,g"Bf[slffip"*t rsonal loan from the Respondent Bank in the 't ;\ .:l :, ', lit,. --ag; 3 '{r;;iffiW
sA 183/2023
year 2016 by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and the 2"a Applicant stood as guarantor for the said loan facilities availed by 1st Applicant. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the l"t Applicant committed default in repayment of loan instalments and the Respondent Bank declared the loan account as NPA and initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. The specillc contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent Bank has not served demand notice and possession notice on the Applicants and the proceedings initiated by the Respondent bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner are not legal.
:r.
s^-s,r/
'ssi*lm-SV
sA 18312023
Respondent Bank is entitled to initiate steps u/s 14 of the Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank approachedld.cJM, Adilabad for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s L4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the advocate commissioner appointed by cJM, Adilabad issued notice dt.18.05.2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank are legal and valid.
Point No.(iil:-
(Dictated to the PS, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the l9thdag of December, 2024).
sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
1 s 0E[ zuzl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have made out any ground for setting aside the bank's proceedings for taking physical possession of the scheduled property.
Whether the Securitization Application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed.
What relief, if any, is to be granted to the applicants.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Govardhan Chawan
Saroja Chawan
UCO Bank
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
