Allowed

Smt.Rachamalla Satyamma v. Centrum Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT29 Oct 2024SA/275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitisation Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant contested the Respondent's taking of physical possession. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that the Respondent failed to comply with mandated provisions and Rules, and quashed the possession measures.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; liberty to proceed afresh.

Smt.Rachamalla Satyamma versus Centrum Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL -^{1 AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY^{OF OCTOBER,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.275/2023

¶5

Smt. RachamallaSatyamma, W/o R. Anjaneyulu, R/o 3-1 1-163/A, L.B.Nagar, Bhongir, YadadriBhongirDist..

¶6

. .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Centrum Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer Corporate & Regd. Office: 801, Centrum House, CST Road, Vidyanagarimarg, Kalina, Santacruz (Easst), Mumbai-4oO 098

¶9

. .. Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri ?- SidharReddg Respondent : 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 action of the Respondent^{fortaking physical} possession of the schedule property through Advocate^Commissioner vide notice dt.25.O7.2023 pursuant to the orders in Cr1.M.P.No.56 12023 on the file of CMM,^{YadadriBhongir Districtand} to set aside the same as

¶13

?',42. The averments & tt" brief, are that, the Applicant availed nal Trust Housing

¶14

5A27s/23

¶15

Finance Ltd. and the Applicant is regulariy is paying the loan instalments till November, 2022.. All of a sudden ot O4.O8.2O23, some agents of the Respondent came to the schedule propert5r and affixed a copy of Notice dt.25. 07 .2023 allegedly issued by the Advocate Commissioner as per the orders in Cr1.M.P.No.5612023 on the file of CMM, Yadadri, Bhongir District. In fact, the Respondent never informed about the loan assigned from the original lender i.e. National Trust Housing finance Ltd. and not issued any prior notice. The Respondent failed to serve possession notice on the Applicant and the Respondent did not follow Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20O2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶16

¶17

The Respondent in spite of service of notice, cal1ed absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent was set exparte.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for setting aside ttle measures initiated by the Respondent for taking phgsical possession o/ the SA sctrcdule propertA through Aduocate Commissioner pursuant to tle orders Cr1.M.P.No.56/2023 on the file of CMM, YadadriBhongir District, 2

¶21

iil To what relief?

¶22

Point No.ll)

¶23

The Applicant filedL pre the proceedings initiated by the Res ndent AESI Act against the application schedulg prop.2.f ffiL,'7[?|" n dent who invoked the . -.i

¶24

sA275/23

¶25

SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by hling Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to hle their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in proceeding against the secured asset for taking physical possession u/s 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent 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.

¶26

Polnt No.(ll):-

¶27

In the result, 5A275123 is allowed.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physica-l possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders in Cr1.M.P.No.56 12023 on the fi1e of CMM, YadadriBhongir District,are hereby quashed. However, the Respondent 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.

¶29

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶30

of this order to the parties concerned. transcribed bA ltim, corrected, signed and pronounced bg open cou-rt on this of October, 2024). sd/2 s 0cr 202t .i, (G. GOPTCHANDI ; lrl ^'.t ,1TRUE^COPI4/, PRESIDING OFFICER Lt,e;)ffi"', ,sst Rtgrrttzr Dpl'/. HYDERABAD. W,,#

Smt.Rachamalla Satyamma v. Centrum Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rachamalla Satyamma v. Centrum Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Narsing Rao Mekala versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/S. Bahujan Rythu Mitra Sangam

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Rama Plastics

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Muluguri Anandam

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kisan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mandla Srinu