Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a security application filed by guarantors challenging an eviction notice and possession proceedings initiated by a bank under SARFAESI Act, holding that prior validation of the possession notice precludes rehearing the issue.
The security application SA 264/2022 was dismissed; no relief granted to the respondents.
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 RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.264,/2C22
l.Dudemetla Srinivasulu, S/o late Narasimha, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, -.R/o H.No.3-24, Opp.Bussrand, Narketpally, Nalgonda.
Tersus
State Bank of India, Stre_ssed Assets Recovery Branch, ]ndfl3or, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre. Bus Terminat Complex, K.ti. Hy;;;;br;."", Kep. oy rts Authorized Officer,
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants : Sri K. BuchiBabu Counsel for the Respondent Bank : Si P.V. Saty anarag ana
ORDER
- The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security . -'-.j -Interesi"--{!, .2002(SARFAESIAcr, 2002) challenging the action ltfl'tlthe.,l
n, ty p'offitv tt' IS* a'"ca te Cc o m m m i issioners sion er :,",":' :::::."''1: ".' t to the orders in "'0. ",.,'.,;;;{r: L','ffi'lr'n' it;0 1 0rr zmr \s:i'{ -( fu-n#,.
sA26412022
Crl.M.P.No. tOO/22 on the file of CJM, Nalgonda and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicantsstood as guarantors to the roan fac,ities availed by M/s Dreams Bakers from the Respondent Bank and they executed necessary relevant documents. The Applicants mortgaged the schedule property as security to the roan ava ed by the borrower M/s Dreams Bakers. Due to Covid_l9, the borrower could not repay the loanamounts and the Bank classified the loan account as NpA. On 16. 11.2018, some third parties came to the Applicants and demanded to hand over the possession of the schedule properties. At the request of the Applicants, they furnished a copy of the possession Notice dt.Ol.l l.2O1g issued by the Respondent Bank. Challenging the said possession notice, Applicant No. 1 filed SA 250/201g on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and the said SA was dismissed. But ali of a sudden, on 24.09.2022, an Advocate commissioner who was appointed pursuant to the orders on the file CJM, Nalgonda, visited the schedule property and issued Eviction Notice dt.13.1O.2O22 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property without following the due process of law. Hence the SA.
a
The Respondent Bank filed its Reply statement denying all the adverse allegations made by the Applicants and contended that the Applicants are the guarantors to the loan facilities availed by M/s Dreams Bakers from the Respondent Bank and the Applicantscreated mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r as security to the
"i:2
sA264/2022
dismissed vide orders dt.O5.07.2019. Later the RespondentBank took steps u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuantto the orders of Ld.CJM, Nalgonda. When the Advocate commissioner appointed by CJM, Nalgonda issued Eviction Notice dt.03 .1O.2O22 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property, the Applicants filed the present SA and hence the same is not maintainable.
Polnt No.ll):
The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants stood as guarantors to the loan facilities availed by M/s Dreams Bakers and as the borrower committed default in repayment of loan instalments, the respondent Bank declared the loan account as NPA and initiated proceedings under SARF lssuingdemandnotice and possession notice. As nts filed by the on, the borrower :1":"J":::.":::::46,fu M/s ' Dreams Bakers'jiled k SA 25072018oroirrut::ffi::,'j the possession
sA 264/2022
Notice dt.01.11.2018 issued by the Respondent bank and after elaborate enquiry, the said SA was dismissed vide orders dt.05.07.2019. So, now the Applicants who are guarantors of the said borrower, cannot re-agitate about the validity or otherwise of the possession notice dt.O1.11.2018 issued by the Bank as the same was already decided in SA.250/ 18 vide orders dt.05.0 T.2}tg.
- So, in the circumstances, I hold that the Applicants have failed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the present SA filed by the Applicants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, this point is an inst the Applicants and in favour of the Respondent
s Point No.ltil: d$ * 01 0;; 7071 ,i€ 9. +)., In the result, the nls dismissed. Consequently, the Interl pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order
sA264/2022
(Dictated to the PS, transcribed.. bg he^r, conected., signed and. pronounced. bg me in firc open courl on this the 14 dag of October, 2024).
sdl-
(G. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER
UE 9OPY ,,1.
e.4",--t4
oit-i,wotnaedo'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether applicants have valid grounds to set aside steps initiated by the bank for taking physical possession of the property pursuant to court orders?
Whether the security application filed by the applicants is maintainable given the prior dismissal of a similar notice challenge?
What relief is due to the applicants?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dudemetla Srinivasulu
Dudemetla Venkateswarlu
State Bank of India
Gummadi GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
