Dismissed

Kallem Manisha Reddy v. Hinduja Housing Finnace Limited

DRT19 Sept 2024SA/270/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the applicant sought to declare a vacate notice and physical possession taken by an advocate commissioner invalid under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held that since the possession was completed by the commissioner prior to the application, the cause of action no longer existed, rendering the application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed as infructuous due to the completion of physical possession.

Kallem Manisha Reddy versus Hinduja Housing Finnace Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons,), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 27O OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. Kallem l4aneesha Reddy D/o Kallem Mahender Reddy Aged about 33 years, Occ:Housewife R/o 4-67, Vikas Nagar, Near Central Bank Dilsukhnagar, Saroornagar, P&T Colony Ra n^g a red d i- 5 00060

¶7

...... .Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

lY/s Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Rep by its Authorlzed Officer Registered Office at 27-A, Developed Industrial Estate Gu indy, Chenna i-600032

¶10

.......Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Ravikiran Singh counsel for Respondent : Mr.T. Ranadhir Singh

¶12

-:Q_U,l-8:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter "the Act" for brevity) to declare the vacate notice dated 07.06.2023^{issued by the} advocate commissioner appointed in crl.MP^{No.1540/2023 on the file} of learned XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabadⁱⁿ respect of sA schedute *operry(rupvt

¶14

2of4

¶15

sA No'270/2023

¶16

The^{avermentsmade in the application' briefly' are that the} applicant^{availed home loan from respondent' Without service of} demandnotice,ithasbeenpublishedtherebyapplicanthasbeen deprived^{of opportunityto raise objectionsunder Sec 13(3-A)of the} Act. Without^{taking symbolicpossession underSec 13(4)' the} respondent^{invoked provision under Sec 14 of the Act' Aggrievedby} the said^{action of respondent,SA ls filed'}

¶17

The respondent^{filed reply statement statinglntera/ia that the} applicant^{availedhome loan of Rs 75 lakhsvide loan agreementdated} 09.01.2021^{and createdmortgageoverschedulepropertyby} depositing^{original title deed vide MODT dated 16'01'2021' Due to} default committed^{by applicant, the loan account becameNPA on} 31.L2.2O27^{as per RBI guidelines After sendingthe demand noticeto} applicant,^{the samewas published With no payment wasmade'} possession^{notice dated 15} 'L:.'2022^{was lssued' publishedand affixed} onSecuredasset.TherespondentapproachedthelearnedcMMu/s14 oftheActfortakingphysicalpossession.Sincetheapplicantfailedto comply the^{conditionalorder passed by the Tribunal'the advocate} commlssionerproceededtotakephysicalpossessionofthesUbject property as^{per procedure' The SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶18

Learned^{counsel for the applicant reported that} orders^maybe for respondent passed basing on^{records whereas learnedcounsel} company^{filed written argumentsPerusedthe written} arguments^and the material^{brought on record'}

¶19

5.^{The points that arise for consideration} a re;-

¶20

out anY^{vatid ground} to

¶21

(i) Whether^{the a1llicanthasmade} allow the^{SA as} PraYed^for?

¶22

( ii) To what^relief? ffi.,a

¶23

3of4

¶24

SANo.27Ol2023

¶25

The undisputed facts are that the applicant availed home loan of Rs.75 lakhs from the respondent company in the year 2021, created mortgage by deposit of original title deed in respect of SA schedule property towards security and committed default in repayment. Resultantly, the loan account became NPA on 3L.t2.202L.

¶26

7. This SA is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

"A. To declare that the vacate notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 07.06.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and all concomitant proceedings as void, violative of procedure contemplated under securitization Act and rules framed thereunder, violative of law for the time being in force, violative of law and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶28

B. Consequently, set aside the vacate notice got issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 07.06.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act pursuant to the warrant dated 25.0.5.2023 in Crl.M.P 1540/2023 on the file of Hon'ble XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad ; and

¶29

C. Pass such other order/s that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of the equity and^justice."

¶30

B. It is disclosed by the respondent company that consequent to the applicant's failure to comply the conditional order dated 23.06.2023 passed by this Tribunal, the advocate commissioner appointed in Crl.MP No.1540/2023 had taken^{physical possession} of the SA schedule property on 21.08.2023 under Panchanama and inventory. The respondent filed material documents along with its reply statement on 26.09.2023 which confirm the fact of taking physical possession of the subject property under Panchanama and inventory. As per commissioner's report, the vacant^possessign in turn has already been handed over to the responde n ro^oun{/ffon t

¶31

4of4

¶32

SA No'270/2023

¶33

With completion^{of the action of takingphysical possessionof} the SA^{schedule property by the advocatecommissioner'the causeof} action^{in the SA does not survive anymoreand accordingly' SA is} liable to^{be dismissedas infructuous'}

¶34

Point No.(ii):

¶35

In^{the result, SA is dismissedas infructuous'}

¶36

Consequently,^{InterlocutoryApplications pendingif any, shall} stand closed.

¶37

12,^{No orderas to costs'}

¶38

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload^{in the official website'}

¶39

sisned^{ondpronouncert bv me} (ryped to my^{dictotion bv thejt} |*,:::?:!^o:^:::;:::::""4 ',;'i;;;;";;L;";;n-this'the^{1e'ihdav of septembeL2024)}

¶40

(RAMEsHwAR_[o]lt-E] PRESIDING^OFFICER

Kallem Manisha Reddy v. Hinduja Housing Finnace Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallem Manisha Reddy v. Hinduja Housing Finnace 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

Farhana K C versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) versus Sh.Sukhavinder Singh

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Jmb Steel

Punjab National Bank versus Paramdeep Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Nitu Devi

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sunita Enterprises