The Deuts Recovery Tribunal I at Hyderabad dismissed an application challenging a notice for physical possession under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The court held that procedural requirements were satisfied, dismissing the appeal.
The application was dismissed; interlocutory applications pending if any stand disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1 2TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C.24
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.3o1/2022
Smt. Sura Padma W/oVenkanna, aged 40 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No. 19-9-370lA, 1"t floor, Beside UBI, Shambhunipet branch, Warangal District. ... Applicant
Versus Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Shambhunipet branch, Warangal District ... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Appticants : Si D. Raghauulu Counsel for Respondent Bank : Si V. SethuMadhaua Rao
ORDER
sA 3OL/2022
repay the loan outstanding dues and so the loan account became NpA. All of a sudden, the Respondent Bank was trying to take possession of the schedule property pursuant to the possession Notice dt.2g.og.2o2l and challenging the said possession notice, the Applicant filed SAIR 2612022 before this Tribunar with a delay and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the Applicant sold the mortgaged schedule property to one Vasam Raj Kumar vide Sale Deed document NO.1163Sl2O1g subject to release of mortgage by the purchaser but the possession of the schedule property was not delivered to the purchaser. Demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant and the Possession notice dt.28. 09 .2o2r was not published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.
sA3Ou2O22
by filing cr1.M.P.No.89 /22uls 14 of the Act and obtained warrant for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent Bank hasduly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder for taking physical possession of the schedule property. AccordinglyRespondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point JVo.(if :-
Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
\hr'*Sd ,.illrepfi.4
sA 307/2022
respect of the schedule property, the said purchaser is a proper and necessary party to the present SA and so, the SA is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Further, as the Applicant is contending that she has not received any demand notice and possession notice from the Respondent Bank, to disprove the same, the Respondent Bank filed necessary material documents aiong with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank has issued Demand notice u/s r3(2) of the Act d.t.or.o4.2o21 and the said notice was sent through Regd. post but the said notice was returned with endorsement "door locked" and so, the Applicant published the said notice in Hans India and Velugu daily newspapers dt.24.04.2021 and also affixed a copy of the notice on the schedule property. As there is no response to the demand notice to pay the outstanding dues, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.2g.0g.2o2r and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post. As the notice was sent through Regd. Post to the correct address of the Applicant, it can be deemed that the said possession notice was received by the Applicant. The said possession notice was pubrished in Hans India and Velugudaily newspapers dt.03.f0.202 1 and as per the photographs filed by the Bank, it is also clear that the copy of the said notice was affixed on the schedule property. As the Applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues in spite of the Possession notice issued by the Bank, the Respondent bank was constrained to approach the Hon,ble CJM, Warangal for appointment of Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. In pursuance of the order passed by the Ld. Chief JudicialMagistrate, warangal, the Advocate commissioner issued Notice dt' 16' 1 7 '2022 to the Applicant herein for vacating the schedule premises. So, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Notice dt. 16. 1 1.2022 issued by the Advocate.Commissioner for taking physical /-?'-' ":.. t to the orders o[ CJM, Warangal, is as per 1C''execehiingyaih', under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and e6';'zooz. Sirithis * .s answered against the Applicant and in fa ll?frh.lryw.ffi*Tji i...i. dl q ,-:-ii [$'f"
sA301./2022
Polnt No.(ti):-
(Dictated to the P.A, transcibed. bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the l2thdag of September, 2024).
sd/_ (c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
lfr?ffi
ioi ti 1, --' 12 srP m :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established any ground for challenging the steps initiated by the respondent bank for taking physical possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?
To what relief should the application be disposed of?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sura Padma W/o Venkanna
Union Bank of India
Sri Gummaadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
