Allowed

Sri Gunda Gangadhar Goud v. Canara Bank

DRT5 Feb 2024SA/212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal set aside the Demand Notice, Possession Notice, and e-Auction Notice issued by the Respondent Bank due to failure to serve required notices, affix notices on the property, publish them in newspapers, and file a reply to the Applicant's averments regarding non-compliance. The Bank appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the Demand Notice, Possession Notice, and e-Auction Notice. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Sri Gunda Gangadhar Goud versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2c24

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.212/2022

¶5

Sri Gundu Gangadhar Goud, S/o. G. Naragoud, aged major, R/o. H.No.6-27, Guttakindiwada, Muchkur, Bheemgal, Nizamabad-503302.

Applicant.

Versus

Canara Bank,

Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Situated at lst Floor, Opp. Kapila Hotel, Dwaraka Nagar, Nizamabad-503307.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶12

Sri D. Ragharrulu. Ex-parte.

¶13

-:ORDERi

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Possession Notice dt.25. OT.2O2l and the e_ Auction Notice dt.28. 1 1.2021, issued by the Respondent Bank fixing the auction of the application schedule property on 31.12.2021 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 1,01,2g,000/_ for development of his business of horticultural works and same was 17.,p%^{of the amount} i.e., Rs.7S,96,000/- subsidy payable 4r9.:(.*^{of amount i.e., Rs.25,32,0oo/- is payableby} approved by the proceedings of the District t of Horticulture, Nizamabad vide its 9l2016, issued in June, 2016. The application #.r..j.r^{/ t} ;11;-ut',4-'' w€nYge'

¶16

SA.No,212/2022

¶17

schedule property is offered as securit5r for the said loan. The Applicant paid the loan instalments regularly for some time and thereafter due to Covid-l9 pandemic, he was unable to market the agriculture produce and suffered financial crises. Despite requests of the Applicant for settling the matter under OTS, the Respondent Bank did not consider the same and proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent Bank failed to serve Demand Notice u/s. 13(2), Possession Notice u/s.13(4) and the e-Auction Notice dt.28.1L2O2l ulr.8(6) of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2OO2. Tine Respondent Bank has also failed to affix the possession Notice and the Sale Notice on the schedule property and further failed to publish the said notices in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

a Despite service of notice to the Respondent Bank, the Respondent Bank did not choose to appear before the Tribunal and was set_ exparte.

¶19

Heard arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶21

Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.2S.O7.2O2l and the e_ Auction Sale Notice dt.28. I l.2o2l, issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the application schedule property?

¶22

ii) To what

¶23

Point No.lll:05

¶24

IS Respondent Bank has Notice u/s. 13(4) Act and the Rules, 2002

¶25

SA,No.212/2022

¶26

on the Applicant and that the Respondent Bank has also failed to affix and publish the possession Notice and Sale Notice on the application schedule property. As stated supra, despite seryice of notice to the Respondent, the Respondent Bank did not choose to appear before this Tribunal to controvert the version of the Applicant by filing its Reply along with material documents. In the absence of any proof towards compliance of provisions of the sARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2OO2, wtlile proceeding against the application schedule property, being secured asset, I have no other option but to set-aside all the measures i.e., issuance of Demand Notice u/s. 13(2), possession Notice dt.25.O7.2021 u/s.13(a) and the e-Auction Notice dt.28.1 r.2021, by the Respondent Bank in respect of the subject loan account of the Applicant and the application schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Applicant.

¶27

Polnt No.ltl):-

¶28

In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the Demand Notice u/s.13(2), possession Notice di.25.O7.202r u/s. 13(a) and the e-Auction Notice dt.28.71.202r, issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the subject loan account of the Applicant and the application schedule property. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(,"?;'?E"r'r?^'::fr;;:Z*,I;,,2y;;;:""*ed. bs him, corrected, sisned and proftounced. bv me in the open @urt o4

¶31

r1':-f,.t_.. .. 05t

¶32

sd/(c. coPrcHA_rrD) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

TRUE COP\T o s{"1T6 nsst. nesi{tay'' D,9r'r. fi l.i^r'.''-4 R{ F,

Sri Gunda Gangadhar Goud v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gunda Gangadhar Goud v. Canara Bank

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

Indian Bank versus Mrs. N. Visalakshi

State Bank of India versus M/S Crescent Jewellers

Tummala Anitha versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shiva Ganga Water Plant

Bank of India versus M/S. Bhadrakali Industries