Allowed

Veladi Bhadraiah v. State Bank of India

DRT4 Oct 2024SA/243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitisation Application challenging a possession notice issued by State Bank of India. The Tribunal quashed the notice due to the Bank's failure to file a reply or submit documents despite opportunities, noting non-compliance with SARFAESI Act procedures.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession notice dated 03.09.2022 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property is quashed.

Veladi Bhadraiah versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TIJ DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.243,/2022

¶5

1.Sri VeladiBhadraiah, S/o Sri VeladiKanakaiah, Aged 72 years,

¶6

Smt. Veladilaxmi Bai, W/o VeladiBhadraiah, Aged 62 years, (both are residing at H.NO.18- 104, Vasavi Nagar, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District)

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus State bank of India VT Colony branch, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District.-20 1 82 Rep. by its Authorized Officer ... Respondent Bank Counsel for the Applicants ; Sn B. Sriniuasa Reddg Respondent Bank : Exparte

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Applicants frled the present Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inte AESI Act, 2002) challenging the Possession issued by the il,'^EF Respondent Bank against thgl'Apre dule set aside the same as illegal and void. r: i. ;rri * rii 0 4 0[T zlP{

¶11

The averments made in the Applicants availed housing 1 the

¶12

sA243/22

¶13

year 2Ol2 to a tune of Rs.40 lakhs against the mortgage of schedule property. It is submitted that the Applicants were regular in payment of loan amounts and all of a sudden, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2on 30.06.2017. On receipt of the said demand notice, the Applicants have raised certain objections vide their letter dt.02.09 .2022. The Bank received the said objections but without giving any reply to the said objections u/s 13(3)(A) of the Act, proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dt.03.09.2o22 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and as such, the said possession notice is not legal and valid. The Respondent Bank failed to follow Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent Bank in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent Bank was set exparte.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶18

i) Wlether the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.03.09.2022 issued bg the Respondent Bank against the schedule propertg?

¶19

il To uhat relief?

¶20

Point No.lt)

¶21

challenging the proceedings initiated by der Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI 20Qp of the application U

¶22

schedule t bank who invoked the

¶23

sA243/22

¶24

SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while issuing the possession notice dt.o3.09.2022 for taking possession of the secured asset. The Bank has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly compried with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 20O2 in issuing the possession Notice dt.O3.Og.2022,I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Polnt No.ll !

¶26

In the result, SA 243 /2022 is allowed.

¶27

B. Accordingly, the impugned possession Notice dt.03.O g.2022 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rures thereunder.

¶28

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

transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced. bg 41Lday of October, 2024). sd/(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

onr-r, sypliiai,rr:

Veladi Bhadraiah v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veladi Bhadraiah v. State 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

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr . M Venkatesh

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Adepu Anuradha

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Shiva Prasad

Catherine Paul Boyapalli versus Varthana Finance Pvt. Ltd.