Allowed

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu v. Union Bank of India

DRT3 May 2024SA/208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte hearing, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's Securitisation Application. The court quashed the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, citing lack of proof of procedural compliance by the respondent bank.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed; Possession Notice dated 09.05.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 set aside.

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 3RDDAv oF MAy, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.2O8 ol 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr. Tenali Ajay Babu, s/o Parasuramaiah, male, aged about 53 years, occ: business, R/o flat no.603, vertex paradise, Nizampet road, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Union Bank of India, Represented by its authorised Officer, Hyderabad Main branch, Siddiamber bazar, Hyderabad.

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant

Respondent

Shri D. Raghavulu

Ex pa rte

ORDER

The applicant filed Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Financial Assets and Enforcement of 2OO2 challenging the Possession notice /datEo og.oSizoz: r SARFAESI Act and :l^* unI l; 03liAY202l

¶17

(SA.208 of 2023)

¶18

without following the rules, provisions, regulations and procedures

¶19

as prescribed under SARFAESI Act.

¶20

The case in brief is that applicant herein availed housing loan of Rs.16,00,000/- against the mortgage of the property i.e., all that flat no.103, 1't floor of Pravalika towers, admeasuring B9O sq.ft, plinth area along with UDS of 30 Sq.yds out of 1600 Sq.yds on plot no.5 & 6, Survey no.125, MCK block 2, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Balanagarmandal, R. R. district, Telangana as a security for the repayment of loan. The applicant was regular in repaying the instalments but due to some unforeseen problems, the applicant could not pay some EMIs, hence the respondent bank proceeded further and issued demand notice. The applicant requested respondent bank to regularise the account by receiving the overdue instalment amount. While things stood thus, the respondent bank illegally declared the applicant account as NpA which is not in accordance with RBI guidelines. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to follow the due process of law and issued the possession notice regarding schedule property of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder. It is of demand notice u nder section 1 proceedings without following due of law is bad and The respondent bank

¶21

(SA.208 of 2023)

¶22

failed to issue/ serve the possession notice dated 09.05.2023 which is mandatory as per Section 13(4) and Rule B(1) and (2) of the Rules. The respondent bank arso faired to affix the possession notice at the conspicuous prace of the property and arso faired to pubrish in two leading newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 8(1) and (2). It is further submitted that the value of property is more than Rs.50.00 lakhs and the applicant deposited substantial amounts to the credit of loan account. Hence prayed to set aside ail the measures iniuated by respondent bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶23

The respondent bank called absent and set exparte.

¶24

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶25

Now the point for consideration is

¶26

Whether the applicant has made valid ground for quashing the SARFAESI proceedings and the measures initiated by the respondent bank against the schedure property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.

¶27

As stated supra, the Respondent Bank remained ex_parte. In the absence of any proof with.Fpt€!.lo the following of due procedure ,a--\ as contempla ted unee(tt 2002 and the Rules made ,(.6thereunder while dnforcing urity*r rest over the application schedule property byr ?ndlA'{ntHionqt Bank, the present

¶28

¶29

(SA.208 of 2023)

¶30

Securitisation Application has to be allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt.09.05.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 against the application schedule property.

¶31

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt.9.05.2023 issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property.

¶32

B. In the result, SA.No.20812023 isallowed. No costs.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3'd day of May'2024),

¶35

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

(f'n*V.ry-
,,,q:ff;E1xil,

¶37

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu v. Union Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Sonaganti Pavan Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Balaji Steel Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S Harika Automobiles

State Bank of India versus Sri Mora Venkata Appa Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gudala Girish

Sri Haridas Ramesh and Others versus State Bank of India