Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Hyderabad dismissed the applicant's application challenging a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the Respondent Bank had scrupulously followed statutory procedures.
The SARFAESI application filed by the applicant is dismissed with 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 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER,2C24
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.z17 /2022
Sri narsing Rao Mekala, S/ oMekalalaxmaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .lO-123 I l,Ghatkesar, Meddchai, Malkajgiri District.
... Applicant
Versus
Shriram city Union Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer 3-6-478,Sft floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-s00 029.
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicants ; Sn T. Sidhar Reddg. Counsel for Respondent bank : Sri M.Indrasen
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2l challenging the action of the Respondent in issuing Possession Notice dt.06.08.2022 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.
f;-.'"^ {"The Applicant availedloar.t'l,5n?n t and he was regular in repayment of loan arrpu.l+t's du":. ..ffior, n, the officials of the t. , . Respondent appro".nuio, llo. ?ttffirymd in that they initiated
proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule property and demanded the Applicant to vacate the schedule property. At the request of the Applicant, they furnished a copy of the notice dt.O6.O8.2O22 for taking symbolic possession of the schedule property wherein there is a mention about the demand notice dt.79.O4.2022 allegedly issued by the Respondent. The applicant hasnot received demand notice and possession notice from the Respondent and the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and hence the impugned possession notice is null and void. Hence the SA.
The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property and committed default in repayment of loan outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 11.05.2011 as per the RBI guidelines. The Respondent issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 19.04.2022 and the said notice was received by the Applicant. When there was no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.O6.O8.2O22 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the Respondent has 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, 2002 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.
-.1.--'-'-::..- i. uhether the a n nuc anthqs. e4!e$ffi!yry.] ground for setting oside the issued bg the Respondent #Hi#::",ffi:*m ri2sctTNt :r
ii. To uhat relief ?
Point No.(if :-
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsei for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule property. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the schedule property u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and there are no merits in the sA. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicant.
Polnt No.(ii):-
(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 2Sthdag of October, 2024).
sdl(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
i 2 0 ocl 702t
I
I
tr,
d"#H##
D F?T- I ; ttYDE R_/t,.* t tt.
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant successfully set aside the possession notice issued by the Respondent alleging procedural irregularities regarding service and publication.
What appropriate relief, if any, should be granted to the Applicant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri narsing Rao Mekala
Shriram city Union Finance Ltd.
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
