This order dismisses an application challenging a Notice of Intended Sale issued by a bank. The Tribunal upheld the bank's compliance with SARFAESI Act procedures, finding the notice valid and legal after payment threats were ignored.
Application dismissed; applicant not entitled to any relief.
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
TJATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMB ER, 2C/24
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No. lAA/2O22
Tayyala Krishna Vamsi, S/o T. Raghu Babu Rep. by his GpA holder T.Raghul3abu S/o late Narasimhacharyulu, Aged 62 years, Occ:advocate R/o Flat No. 108, Maram G.L. heavens, Saraswati Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, R.R.District.
... Applicant
HDFC Limited, Regd. Officc ar Mumbai Branch at Fil)F'C house, H.No.3-6-3 tO, IJyderguda road, Basheerbagh, I lyderabad Rep. by its Authorized, officer
Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant ;Sn R. Sriniuasa Rao Counsel.for the Respond.ent M/ s Lotus Law Associales
.: ORDER:
Z
property and he was regular in repayment of loan instalments but due to covid-19 he could not make some instalments. when the Applicant offered to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.S lakhs, the Respondent demanded the Applicant to pay Rs.12 lakhs. Thereafter, the l?cspondent took steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002 which is illegal. The Respondent issued notice ulr g(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2oo2 without accepting the amounts offered by the Applicant. The Respondent failed to issue possession notice on thc Applicant and the said possession notice is arbitrary. Hence the SA.
3' The Rcspondent fited their Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicant having availcd housing loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of schcdrrle property, committed default, and so the loan account of the Applicant was classified as NpA on 30.01 .2o2r. Thereafter, Respondent issued demand notice to the Applicant on 04.0 6.202r u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was publisliecl in newspapers. Thereafter on 22.o9.2021, the Respondent issucd possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act for taking symbolic posscssion of the schedule property and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers on 26.og.2o2land also affixed on the schedule property.. Thereafter the Respondent took steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate comrnissioner by filing crl.M.p.No. 1g122 u/s 14 of the Act before Ld. cMM, Ranga Reddy and the advocate commissioner appointed by cMM, Itanga R.d4E**%{.al possession of the schedule property on 07. 03 .ZOZZfiffitwfl&Nsnonden f i q ' _ : ff ,:"i#w:trexffi' ":: T, [:;;, :::.fj said nori"Ct'ft "".r.ffi., ug oroft&. ;n;", *re Respondent has ' foll.v'ccl dlaJu il-g-' p.{AJ$l &}r,.under the provisions of E'thereunder in issuing notice u/r sAIiFAnsl #,gorgz and Rutes 'W
3
8(6) ol Rules, 2OO2 and there are no merits in the SA. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point No.(l):-
4
2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property but he filed the present SA challenging the Pre sale Notice dt.09.06.2022 issued by the IRespondent u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2.
- Thc ltcspondent in order to substantiate their contentions, enclosed relcvi.int material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per thc material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.04.06.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 to the Applicant calling upon him to pay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the said noticc was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post to the address of the Applicant. As the said notice was returned unserved, the Respondent published the said demand notice in two leading
newspapcrs on 03.O7 .2021. Thereafter, the Respondent issued Possr--ssion Notice on 22.09.2021 and the said notice sent to the Applicant was returned unserved and the said notice was published in Tclugu and English daily newspapers on 26.09.2O21 as evidenced from the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. As per the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent, it is very clear that the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property. In the circumstances, it is clear ndent issued demand notioc and possession notice laid down under the provisions of SARFAES 2002 Rules de thereunder. )''' 11. As pcr thc material doctdl4ent r issuing the "' _ _i,.' ',2i&i$oIr'4t tr'' ..
posst:ssion notice, the Respondent initiate$'6 edings before CMM, Ranga Reddy for taki of the schedule
5
propcrty and the advocate commissioner appointed by cMM, Ranga Ileddy took physical possession of the schedule property on 07 .oi.2022 by preparing panchanama and inventory list. Thereafter, the Rcspondent issued Notice of Intended Sale dt.09.06.2022 by giving 30 days time to the Applicant for redemption of the secured asset which is being challenged by the Applicant in the present sA. As per the documents filed by the Respondent, it is evident that the said Noticc of Intcnded Sale dt.09.06.2022 was received by the Applicant. Aftcr rcccipt of the said notice, instead of taking steps for redemption of thc secured asset, the Applicant filed the present sA. so, the said Noticc of Intended Sale dt.09.06.2022 issued by the Respondent is perfcctly valid and legal.
t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Respondent has duly lbll<>wed the procedure in issuing Notice of Intended Sale u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 against the schcc-lulc property and the said notice is perfectly legal and valid. So, the Applicant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this point is ansu,crcd in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.
Eetr! Ng",ta):-
signed and prorrounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d daA
TRUE COPY
?. 2 |\I0!'
'fr7i sd/-
l'-rL--- ),/v." -
" -n:,";, f ;g'; !iZ' o d., I 3""!?;i?HH#[?
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a valid ground exists to challenge the Notice of Intended Sale issued under Section 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?
To what relief, if any, the applicant is entitled?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tayyala Krishna Vamsi
HDFC Limited
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
