Dismissed

B Rambabu v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited

DRT19 Mar 2024SA/226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed to quash a possession notice. The court held that the applicant, having illegally trespassed on the schedule property after it had been lawfully taken into possession by the respondent, was estopped from challenging the respondent's recovery proceedings. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, disposed of.

B Rambabu versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶5

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

Securitization Application No.226 of 2023

¶7

B. Rambabu S/o B Reddeppa R/o Udayamikyam Reddyvaripalem Chittoor Temporarily staying at Pilliyar Annamayya^Dist.

¶8

.......Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Aptus Value Housing Finance Ltd Rep by its Authorised Officer Chittoor Branch, A.P.

¶11

.......Res\ondent.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants :Sri Ramesh Anand M G Counsel for Respondent :No representation

¶13

-:9-B-p-E-B:-

¶14

The Applicants filed the^present Securitisation^{Application u/s.17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction} of^{FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002 (hereinafter "the Act" for} short) to^quash all further^{proceedingspursuant} to^{possession notice} dated 03.05.2023 and Sec.14^{proceedingspursuant} to^Crl14P No.67 /2022 on the file of learned Chief Judlcial^{Magistrate, Chittoorin} respect of the SA schedule^property.

¶15

The case of the applicant as^per averments of^{the application,in} brlef, is that though the applicant^{was servicing loanregularly except} three instalments during Corona^pandemic, the^{respondentclassified} /4,'r..^ C,./^{--\q'< </sup>}

¶16

2 ol3

¶17

SA No'226/2023 ,

¶18

the account^{as NPA.The applicant has not received any notice either} u/s 13(2)^{and therefore, he could not have opportunityto raise} objections^{as per Sec.13(3A). The possessionnotice said to be issued} under Sec.13(4)^{of the Act, 2002 also was not servedand the same} was neither^{published in newspapersnor affixed as per Rules Without} following due^{procedure of law, the respondent is contemplating to} take^{physicalpossessionof SA schedule property Hence this SA'}

¶19

The right of filing^{reply statement of respondent was forfeited} on 29.01.2024^{and right of advancingargumentswas also forfeitedon} 06.03.2024^{as no rePresentatlon.}

¶20

4- Heard learned^{counsel for applicant'He reiterated the same} version as^{in the aPPlication.}

¶21

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are;-}

¶22

(i) whether the applicants^{made out any valid groundto} set aside the^{possessionnotice dated 03'05'2023and} action of respondent^{to take phYsicalpossessionof the}

¶23

SA schedute^{property pursuant to order passed in} Crl.MP No'67/2022^{on the file of learned Chiefludicial} Magistrate, Chittor?

¶24

(ii) To what relieP

¶25

Point No'(i):-

¶26

Admittedly, the^{applicant committed irrFgularityin payment of} roan instarments. ,jw'^

¶27

3of3

¶28

SANo.22612023

¶29

As stated^{supra, there was no representationfor respondent} aftermakingappearancethroughitscounselsriT'srinivas'However' |earnedcounselfiledamemodated0l.0B.2023statingthatafterthe respondent^{had taken physical possession of the SA scheduleproperty} on3|,oT.2023throughadvocatecommissionerappointedin Crl.MP.No.67 12022,^{the applicant broke open the seal and trespassed} on the schedule^{propertyand the respondent was going to file a police} complaint.^{Copiesof photographs with and without seal are annexed} to the memo.^{This fact is not disputed by the applicant and on the} other hand,^{suppressed by the applicant'Hence the memo has to be} taken into^{cognizance. Having taken back physical possession in an} illegal manner,^{the applicant is estoppedfrom finding fault with the} procedure followed^{by the respondent for recovery of duesby} enforcing security^{interest' Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶30

Point No'(ii):

¶31

In the^{result, the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶32

Consequently,^{the InterlocutoryApplicationspending if any'} shall stand disPosed^of'

¶33

No order^{as to costs.}

¶34

ll.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the^{Web Portal.}

¶35

(Typed to my dictotion by^{the PS, corrected, signed ond pronouncedby me in theopen} court on this the^{Tgth doy of Morch, 2024)'}

¶36

Itvl*^,.-,1r,

¶37

,t^{_L., '-q.) 5' J--} (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

B Rambabu v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Rambabu v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited

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

Dream Digital Others versus the Varachha Cooperative Bank Limited

Hari So Mahadeo Choure versus Ms Godavari Traders

Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha Traders

Uco Bank versus Sunil Kumar Anand

Mr Mohinder Kumar versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.