Dismissed

Ashok Kumar B v. Gic Housing Finance Limited

DRT19 Nov 2024SA/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed a Section 17 application challenging the recovery respondent's action of taking physical possession of secured property. The court held that the recovery firm strictly followed the SARFAESI Act procedure, including serving demand and possession notices, and thus set aside the application.

What did the court decide?

The present securitization Application is dismissed. Interlocutory Applications pending shall stand disposed of.

Ashok Kumar B versus Gic Housing Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 gTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2C.24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.B t 6/2C22

¶4

1.Sri Ashok Kumar B., S/o Rama Swamy, aged 5g years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .lT -96, SBH Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad.

¶5

Smt. B.Sunitha,

¶6

W/o Ashok Kumar B.,aged 54 years, Occ: house wife, R/o H.No.!T-96, SBH Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

GIC Housing Finance Ltd., Oflice at 3-6-438/4, 4tt floor, United Towers, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

Rep. by its Authortzed Officer

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respond.ent Bank

¶13

: Sri K. Kranthi Kumar : Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicants filed the present securitisation Application u/s.17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the action of the Respondent in taking physical sion of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner dt.18.1O.2O22 pursuant to the orders in 122^on the file of cMM, Malkajgiriand to declare the void.

¶16

sA31.6/22

¶17

The averments made by the Applicants, in brief, are that:

¶18

The Applicants availed housing loan from the Respondent to a tune of Rs.12,25,6311- and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Due to covid-19, they could not make some payments and So, the loan account was classified as NpA. But the Respondent without serving any demand notice and possession notice, straight away initiated steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of cMM, Malkajgiri u/s t4 of the sARFAESI Act,2oo2 without following the due process of law. Hence the SA.

¶19

The Respondent filed its Reply statement denying all the adverse allegations made by the Applicants and contended that the Applicants after availing housing loan, committed default and so the loan account of the Applicants was classified as NpA and the Respondent initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.L2.o4.2ol3 u/s 13(2) of the Act calling upon the Applicants to pay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the said notice was published in English and Telugu dailynewspapers. Thereafter the Respondentissued Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of theAct on 2o.o7.2o13 and the said notice was personally served on the Applicants and published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the Responderrt proceeded u/s 14 of the Act by filing crl.M.p.No.t3sl22 before cMM, Malkajgiri for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession Jh8q.dule^{property. when the Advocate} commissioner appointed kajgiri issued Notice dt.18. lo.2022 to the Applicants to ule property, the Applicants filed the present SA. The ..,t^;d$il..f+ Rff6ondent ol\wed theprocedure prescribed under the provisions of 002 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding u/s

iI :l

sA3L6/22

L4 of the SARFAEST Act,2oo2 and hence the SA is liable to dismissed

¶24

Heard both the Ld. counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶25

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶26

i) whether the Applicants haue mad.e out ualid ground.s for setting aside the steps initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possesslon of the sA schedule property pursuant to the ord.ers of Ld.CMM, Malkajgii in Crl.M,p.No.135/ 22?

¶27

ii) To what relieft

¶28

Polnt No.(il:

¶29

6' During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld' Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶30

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed housing loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan instalments and the Respondent declared the loan account as NPA and initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by issuing demand notice and possession notice. The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent has not served demand notice and possession notice on the Applicants and all of a sudden, the advocate commissioner who was appointed by the cMM, at the instance of the Respondent, issued notice to the p^vacate the schedule property.

¶31

/fP
*
leilourrzl
j
)a

¶32

sA31.6122

¶33

The Respondent along with their Reply, filed relevant material documents for establishing that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding against the schedule property. As per the said material documents filed by the Respondent, it is clear that on12.o4.2013, the Respondent issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the Act and the said notice was also published in English and Telugu daily newspapers on lr.os.2o13. Thereafter on 20.o7.2013, the Respondent issued possession notice u/s l3(4) of the Act for taking symbolic possession of the schedule property and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements. The said notice was published in two dailynewspapers asevidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated steps u/s 14 of the Act, 2oo2 before cMM, Malkajgiri for taking physical possession of the schedule property by appointment of advocate commissioner. So, as per the documents filedby the Respondent, it is evident that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice, possession notice and also for taking steps for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶34

,/ lP

¶35

¶36

So, in the circumstances, I hold that the Applicants have failed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the nt under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking physical the schedule property and So, the present sA filed by is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. point is answered against the Applicants and in pondent.

¶37

sA31.6/22

¶38

Point No.(iil:-

¶39

9' In the result, the present securitization Application is dismissed. consequentry, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the ps, tr-anscibed. bg her, g2rrected, signed. and pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the lgthdaA of Noueiber, 2024).

¶42

sd/-

¶43

(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

0.w
,#fif;9;r'

Ashok Kumar B v. Gic Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar B v. Gic Housing Finance 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

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Bandi Kiran Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jay Ess Associate

Ananda Ratna Rajakumar Bunga versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.