Allowed

Mumtaz Veerani v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT30 Jan 2024SA/282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant sought quashing of SARFAESI measures against a joint property. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the bank's actions due to alleged violations of notice requirements and lack of critical document service, as the respondent bank remained ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside all measures taken up by the 1st respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the schedule property.

Mumtaz Veerani versus Dcb Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^{AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF^JANUARY,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB' (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION^{NO. 282 OF 2()22}

¶5

[4rs. Mumtaz Veerani W/o Mohammaedali Kessamali^Veerani Age 59^years, Occ: House^wife Flat No. G-08, Rose Block- B Garden Mutually Aided Co-oP Housing Society Ltd., Sy No.105/E Kompally Village, Qutubullapur^Mandal Rangareddy District - 5OO 1OO.

¶6

..'....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Development Credit Bank^{Limited (DCB)} Rep. by its Authorised Officer 8-2-120/84, 2nd^Floor Jyothi Majestic, Banjara^Hills Hyderabad-500034.

¶9

Mohammaedali Kessamall^Veerani S/o Mr. Kasimali^Veerani Age: 64^years, Occ:^Private Rlo 5-5-273/5, Gandhi^Bhavan Patel Nagar, Near Water^Tank Nampally, Hyderabad Telangana-500001.

¶10

. ,,,..Respondents'

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T, Ranadhir Singh' Respondents : Ex-Parte.

¶12

-:9-BSE-B r-

¶13

The^present Securitization^{Application is filed by the Applicants} u/s. 17 of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act. 2002 assailingthe advocate} commissioner^{notice 25.10.2022 appointedin crl.M.P.No.7112022on} ,y'tgra,z o>w 1// 6,"

¶14

SA.No.2E2/2022

¶15

the file of the Learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge at MedchalMalkajgiri.

¶16

The case of the applicant in brief is that she is the wife of 2nd respondent and both together availed housing loan of Rs.2,50,000/from the 1st respondent bank in the year 2016. The schedule property is a joint property in their name. Due to family dispute, applicant is living the SA schedule property and 2nd respondent is living separately. As there is no support from her husband, the loan account could not be cleared, resulting in its classification as NpA. 1st respondent bank issued demand notice dated 20.12.2O2t fot Rs.2,63,240.3ops. Thereafter 1st respondent bank served the impugned advocate commissioner notice. The 1st respondent bank has not served possession notice u/s 13(4) and violated rules 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3 ) thereof.

¶17

The 1st respondent was set ex parte on 29.03.2023.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant and perused the written arguments filed by the applicant and the material placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is;

¶20

Whether applicant has made out a valid ground to quash the SARFAESI measures initiated by the respondent against SA schedule property?

¶21

Admittedly, the 2nd respondent died pending the SA and applicant is the only legal heir. As stated supra, 1sr Respondent Bank remained ex-parte. In the absence of reply statement, the contentions of the applicant remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Accordingly, SA deserves to be altowed. Y <aov- 7y<..^ \

¶22

SA.No.282/2022

¶23

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside all the measures taken up by the 1* respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act,2002 against the SA schedule property,

¶24

B. Consequently, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶25

(Dictated to the Steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2024).

¶26

OW,^ (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mumtaz Veerani v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz Veerani v. Dcb Bank 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Lalan Singh and others

Icici Bank Limited versus Rakesh Choudhary (Borrower)

Canara Bank versus M/s Ragini Egg Fresh and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh Harmeet Singh

Canara Bank versus M/s Taj Automobiles and Others

Dheeraj Kumar Jha versus Bank of Baroda