Allowed

Mrs Kailas Sulochana v. State Bank of India

DRT23 Oct 2024SA/266/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's security application under the SARFAESI Act. The court quashed the respondent bank's possession notice dated 26.09.2022 because the bank failed to justify its actions by filing a reply or producing necessary material documents in compliance with the Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Posession Notice dt.26.09.2022. Liberty to the Respondent Bank to proceed afresh against the schedule property.

Mrs Kailas Sulochana versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.266/2022

¶5

Mrs. Kailas Sulochana, W/o K. Nagender R/o 653, Ikushi Defence Colony, Patancheru, R.R. District-s02 319.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer ODF Eddumailaram branch, Sangareddy District-5O2 205. ... Respondent Bank

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent Bank

¶10

: Si V. SethuMadhaua Rao : Exparte

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation^Application u/s'17^of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial^Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2^{(SARFAESIAct,2OO2l} challenging the Possession Notice dr.26.O9.2O22^{issued by the} Respondent Bank against the schedule^{property and to set aside the} same as illegal and void.

¶13

The averments made in the application, in brief,^{are that, the} Applicant availed home loan to a tune of^{Rs.18.25lakhsfromthe} Respondent Bank and.. in respect of the schedule property towards aid loan' Even though the Applicant is regulaTlflprviffi" i"Ie=lry"\t",^{the Balk clls-s*o} .,1"

¶14

loan account as NPA and issued demarid\hotice^{dt.27.O4.2O22and in} response to the said derre#[Jf.[, thF$plicant^{raisedobjections}

¶15

sA266/22

¶16

vide notice dt.19 .06.2022 but the Respondent Bank without giving reply to the said objections, directly, issued Possession Notice dt.26.O9.2022 which is illegal. The Respondent Bank failed to follow Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

¶18

The Respondent Bank in spite of service of notice, ca11ed absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent Bank was set exparte.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶21

i\ WLether the Applicant has established ong ualid grounds for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.26.09.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank against the schedule propertA?

¶22

i, To what relief?

¶23

Polnt No.ll)

¶24

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the^proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking symbolic possession of the application schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule^property, failed to^justify their action by frling Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while^proceeding against the secured asset. The Bank has not evinced any interestⁱⁿ contesting the matter even after^giving several opportunities^{and failed} to file their Reply and material sprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the .+ idence to show that the Respondent Bank the mandated provisions of SARFAESI against

¶25

W,r-Sp

¶26

sA266/22

¶27

the secured asset for taking possession u/s 13( ) of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has 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.

¶28

Polnt No.(ll):-

¶29

In the result, SA 266122 is allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned Possession Notice dt.26.O9.2022 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 Rules thereunder.

¶31

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the muate Secretary, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 23'dday of October, 2024).

¶34

? 3 0[I 2ml

¶35

sd/(G. GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER TBHEPP*,. /!ir{#r*

Mrs Kailas Sulochana v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kailas Sulochana 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

Smt Islavath Bujji versus Canara Bank

Ms Mourya Enterprises versus State Bank of India

M S Sai Kiran Granites versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus the Adilabad Expressway Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vistan Next Gen Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Rama Plastics