Dismissed

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy v. Hdfc Bank

DRT23 Sept 2024SA/297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged a Sale Notice issued by the Respondent under SARFAESI Act, claiming illegal procedure. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding the Applicant was estopped from challenging prior notices as they were previously adjudicated and the current SA became infructuous due to an existing stay on the auction.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy versus Hdfc Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024 PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy S/o Chinnaswamy Naidu, Occ:Retd. Employee, aged 63 years, R/o Flat No.303, 3.dfloor, Kotakam Pranathi, MCH No.6-3-609 I 14, Plot No.4, Anandnagar colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500 082.

¶3

..Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.(HDFC) Rep. by its Authorized officer H.No.3-6-3 10, Hyderguda Road, Basheerbagh, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

¶6

..Respondent.

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Si D. Ragharrulu

¶9

Counsel for the Respondent Sri B. Rauindra Reddg

¶10

-:ORDER:.

¶11

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the action of the Respondent in issuing Sale Notice dt.22.1O.2O22 fixing the date of auction on 30.11.2022 in respect of the schedule property and to as illegal and void. .i$ 7 l*". 2. The averments made in apprlcarlo brief, *- u^23StP )Mt The Applicant availed loan lrom Respondent by mortgaging the schedule but due to itl

¶12

sA 297 /2022

¶13

health, he could not pay some instalments. All of a sudden, on 25.1l.2122,t}:e Applicant came to know that the Respondent Corporation is trying to sell the schedule^property on 30.1 1.2022ⁱⁿ pursuance of the Sale Notice dt.22.1O.2022. The Respondent did not issue demand notice, possession notice and also sale notice^{on the} Applicant and the said notices are neither affixed^{on the schedule} property nor published in daily newspapers as^{per the provisions of} SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules^{made thereunder.Hence the SA.}

¶14

The Respondent corporation^{filed their Replydenyingall the adverse} allegations made in the^{SA. The contentionsof theRespondentin} brief are that, the^{Appiicant after availing housing loan from the} Respondent by mortgaging^{the schedule property, failed to repay the} loan amount and hence, the^{loan accountwas classifiedas NPA'} Thereafter demand^notice u/s^{13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was} issued to the Applican^{t ot27 .02.20 17 and when there was no} response from the Applicant^{to the said notice, the Respondent} issued possession notice^{dt.30.o5.2017 and the said notice was} affixed on the schedule^{propertyand also publishedin two daily} newspapers. Challenging^{the said possessionnotice,the Applicant} filed SA.233/ 2017^{arld the said SA wasdismissed by this Hon'ble} Tribunal and^{hence the Applicant cannot questionthe validity of} the said demand^{notice and possessionnotice in the presentSA'} Subsequently, the^{Respondent issued Sale Notice dr'22'lO '2022} fixing the date of auction on^{30.11.2022 in respectof the schedule} property and the said notice^{was published in daily newspapers'} Thus, the Respondent^{has foliowedthe procedure laid down under the} provisions of sARFAESI^{Act and Rules, 2002 in proceedingfor sale of} of the stay^{granted bY this} the schedule Property.^Ho Tribunal, the ProPo O22 was not conducted and hence the SA ,^Respondent prayed to dismiss the

¶15

sA297 /2022

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶18

il WhetLter the Applicant is entitled to chollenge the Sale^Notice dt.22.10.2022 fixing the date of auction on 30.71.2022^{against the} schedule propertA?

¶19

iil To what relieft

¶20

Polnt No.li) t

¶21

During the course of arguments,^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicantand} Ld. counsel for the^{Respondent reiterated their respective versions} as stated supra.

¶22

From the material^{documentsfrledby the Respondent, it is clear that} on earlier occasion,^{the Applicant hereinfiled SA 23312017} challenging the^{demand noticeand possession notice issuedby the} Respondent and the^{said SA was dismissed by this Tribunalvide order} dt.27.O8.2O18. So,^{the Applicantis estoppedfrom questioningthe} validity or otherwise of^{the demandnotice and possession notice} issued by the Respondent^{as the same was challenged in the earlier} SA 233/ 17.^{So far as the Sale Notice dt'22'1O'2O22is concerned'the} said notice is duly^{served on the Applicant and copy of the same} was affixed on^{the scheduie propertyand also published in Financial} Express and Mana^{Telangana daily newspapers on 22'lO'2O22wh,'ic}:^} is evident by the^{material documents filed by the Respondentalong} with the Reply statem ,^{in the circumstances,it is} followed the^procedure clear that the I Act,2002 and^Rules prescribed under made thereunder^{in{ssui2q,mP"h2t.,ic*-i}ireslectof the schedule} jt! property. Further,, *. no^auction-is in respect of^the ^coiilllcted R-;b",;*o,#}'

¶23

sA297/2022

¶24

schedule property pursuant to the said sale notice dt.22.1o.2o22 in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal, nothing survives in the SA and so, the SA becomes infructuous..

¶25

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled for any relief as sought for and there are no merits in the sA. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent.

¶26

Potnt No.(ill:-

¶27

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶29

(Dctated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, conected, signed and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 23d dag of September, 2O24).

¶30

sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

,,F{4q-& 1N
TRUE COPY
,$ '.+ 23 SEP mt *
-il
i . -J-a olt a1 *r/,,7 /l .u-- ?),
-r-5, l; /', *:i:.+lgl:; ^,LJ I' g I u L
\itl;rb'i.\ ' r ltYlJl J.
SYtrpr;H?

¶32

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy v. Hdfc Bank

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

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Zenith Import and Export

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Munigala Indira

T Subba Reddy versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shresht Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus New Amma Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mourya Automotives