Dismissed

Mr S Prathap v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DRT18 Dec 2024SA/305/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed an application under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging a possession notice. The court held the Respondent complied with publication and affixation requirements, dismissings the application.

What did the court decide?

S.A. 305/2022 is dismissed as devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Mr S Prathap versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{1 AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 18TH^{DAY OF DECEMBER'2024}

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶3

sA.No.3C5/2C-22

¶4

Mr. S. Pratap. S/o S. Subramanyam^Raju, Occ:Doctor, D. No.4-28 / A, RachaPalem(V&Po), Puttur(M), Chittor^Dist.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

l.Sriram CitY Union^financeLtd' Rep. by its Authorized^officer 3-6-478,5th^{floor AnandEstates,} Liberty Road,^{HimaYathnagar,} Hyderabad-500^029.

¶8

2.Shriram CitY^{Union Finance Ltd',} Rep. by Authorized^officer, No. 12, RamaswamY^Street, T.nNgar, Chennai-600^0O1.

¶9

... ResPondents T.nNgar, Chennai-600^0O1. ; Sn T. Sidhar Counsel for^{the APPlicant} : Si M.Indrasen Counsel for^ResPondents

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Application^{is filed u/ s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of} Financial Assets^{and EnforcementofSecurity InterestAct, 2oo2} ESIAct,2oo2|challengingtheactionoftheRespondentin ssion Notice^{dt.09.11.2)22inrespectof the schedule} declare the^{same as illegal and arbitrary'} e by the Applicant^{in brief are as follows:} ', 27^g flfiE {Et*""S l'ri.. .rl 1.,^,, ,.' r, ,-;.! {ib,,

¶12

sA30sl22

¶13

The Applicant availed various credit^{facilities from the Respondent and} executed relevant documents^{and also created mortgage in respect of} the schedule property towards^{security for the said loan facilities.Due to} financial crisis, the Applicant^{could notpay some instalments,so the} loan account was classified^{as NPA and the Respondentissued demand} notice dt.2g.o7.2o22uls^{13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2O02 calling upon} the Applicant to^{pay theentire outstanding dues within sixty days.} Thereafter the Respondent^{issuedpossessionnotice dt.09' ll.2022 uls} 13(4) of the Act but^{the said possession notice was not published in two} daily newspapers^{nor affixed on the conspicuous place of the schedule} property as prescribed^{under Rule 8(1)&(2) ofSecurityInterest} (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2.^{Hence the SA'}

¶14

The Respondent^{filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations} made in the SA^{and contendedthat the Applicant havingavailed loan} from the Respondent,^{committeddefault inrepayment ofloan} outstanding^{dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on} 08.08.2019as^{per the RBI guidelines and the Respondentissued} demand notice u/s^{13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 29'07'2022 calling} upon the Applicant^{to repay the entire outstanding dues' As the} Applicant failed^{to repay the loan amountas demanded within60 days'} the Respondent^{issuedPossession Notice u/s13(4) of the Acton} 09.i1 .2022 for^{taking symbolicpossessionof the schedule property'The} Respondent has^{followed theprocedure contemplatedunder the} provisions of SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2and Rulesmade thereunderinissuing} demand notice^{and possessionnoticeagainstthe schedule property and} there are inglyRespondent^{prayed to dismissthe SA'}

¶15

ts that arise^{for considerationare} 4. Heard

¶16

1 I^0i[ zut

¶17

sA 3Os/22

¶18

uthether the Applicant has established anA ualid^ground fo, challengingthe Possession Notice dt.09.11.2022 issued by^the Respondent against tle schedule propertg?

¶19

To what relief ?

¶20

Point lVo.(if :-

¶21

During the course of arguments,^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicant and Ld'} Counsel for the Respondents^{reiteratedtheir respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶22

The undisputed facts of^{the case are that the Applicantavailed loan of} Rs.2,00,00,000/- from^{the Respondentagainst the mortgageof schedule} property ald thereafter^{committcd default in repaymentof outstanding} dues and so, the loan^{accountwas classified as NPA and the Respondent} issued demand notice u/s^{L3(21 of the SARFAESIAct, 2OO2 to the} Applicant. The^{fact that theApplicantreceived the possession notice} dt.Og. 11.2022^{issued by the Respondent u/s 13(a) of the Act is also not} in dispute. The^{only contention raised by the Applicant is thatthe} said possession^{notice dt.09. ll.2022 was neither affixed on the schedule} property nor published in^{twonewspapers. Per contra, Respondent} contended that they^{have duly followed the procedurelaid down under} the provisions of^{SARFAESIAct,2002 and Rules made thereunder in} issuing demand^{notice and possessionnotice'}

¶23

To substantiate their^{version, the Respondenthas filed relevant material} documents along with^{the Reply filed by them. As per the said} docum-eqf€fidffiS*kar that^{on 09.11.2022, t1..e Respondentissued} t{ poffiS#S'fuYfJSUN3(a)^{of the sARFAESIAct, 2002after issuing} o#;iro ,roffi ,l " $\t "r^{the Act dt.2s.o7 .2022 and the said} popsessioq t.,^... wasa\lmittedly^{received by the Applicant'The} e rv i c e . r [:, "^{;. ;;; -", * ;} " "^{J .3, [['!:fftt ; J.ffi ;: ; ; ;.;}

¶24

sA3osl22

¶25

the said possession notice on the Applicant.. As^per the copies^{of paper} publication filed by the Respondent, it is clear that the^Respondent published the said possession notice in New Indian^{Express and} Prajashaktidaily newspapers on^{1 1. 1 1} .2O22and also^{affixed copy of the} said notice on the schedule^{property as depicted in the photographsfiled} by the Respondent. Hence^{in the circumstances,it is quite clear that the} Respondent has scrupulously^{followed the procedurelaid down under} the provisions of^{SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 inissuingthe} possession notice dt.Og. tl.2022 u/s^{13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2} and there are no^{violations. Accordingly, thispoint isansweredin} favour of the Respondent^{and against the Applicant.}

¶26

Point No.(ti):'

¶27

7 . In the result, SA^{3O512022isdismissed as devoid ofmerits'} consequently, the^{Interlocutory Applications, pendingif any, shall stand} disposed of. No^{order as to costs'}

¶28

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶29

(Dctated to the P.s, transcibed^{bg her, corrected.,signed and pronounced bg me in the open} court on this the^{l}thdaAof December,2024)'}

¶30

sd/^- (G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING^OPFICER

¶31

IRUE^con) ),(.yffi' Asst^Reglstrar T}R7.T,^{T'VTIFRA8.AO,}

Mr S Prathap v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S Prathap v. Shriram City Union 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

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika

M/S . Uco Bank versus M/S. Vanitha Jyothi Mahila Sangam

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Enterprises

Mrs D Umadevi versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Sugyam Vittal