Dismissed

m s nipun constructions v. Punjab National Bank

DRT29 Aug 2024SA/396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 77 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a sale notice, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The court held that since the scheduled auction did not materialize due to want of bidders, the relief against the sale notice no longer subsisted, and the contention regarding defective demand notices was meritless due to lack of supporting evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Interlocutory Applications pending stand closed.

m s nipun constructions versus Punjab National Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{29th DAY OF AUGUST,2024}

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION No. 396 OF 2023}

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Nipun Constructions

¶7

D. No. 8-3-678/70,^{1st Floor,}

¶8

Pragathi Nagar Sri Nagar ColonY^Extn.

¶9

H ydera bad, Tela^{nga na -4 5.}

¶10

Mr. Karanki Srinivasu S/o Late K. SatYanaraYan

¶11

Age: 50 Years, Occ:^Business ' Flat No.402, Sri Niketan^Apartments Shyam Karan^Road Backside of APPollo^HosPital Ameerpet, HYderabad Telangana-500016. ..'. . 'Applicants'

¶12

And

¶13

Punjab National Bank Rep. by Authorised Officer Circle Sastra, Regency^Plaza lvlaitre Vihar Area Gayathri Nagar,^{PIot No.3} Ameerpet, Hyderabad Telanga na-500038. .... , .Respondent.

¶14

Counsel for the Applicants^{: Mr' ArunnMarripeddi.} Counsel for the Respondent^{: Mr. N.V. SubbaRaiu.} n" _a,., -).!"'

¶15

s4.396/2023

¶16

-:ORDER:-

¶17

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.77 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing sale notice dated 23.08.2023 scheduling the schedule properties for sale on 29.09.2023.

¶18

As per the averments in SA, the case of the applicants in brief, is that applicants availed business loans from the respondent bank. Though applicants paid EMIS promptly, they could not do so due to losses in business and delay in payments in a government contract. Now the 2nd applicant is working in a private company to meet both the ends. Respondent bank not accepted regularisation proposals. The respondent bank issued two demand notices dated 02,02.2022 and 07.72.2022. The demand notice is defective for not taking into account the deposits made by the applicant. Objections to the demand notice have not been considered. The possession notice has not been affixed on the secured assets nor published in two newspapers.

¶19

Respondent bank filed reply statement. The averments of which in brief, are that applicant and his family members availed various loans but failed to repay the same. The provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of Securitisation Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, have been duly complied with while issuing the demand notice as well as the possession notice. The outstanding amount shown in the demand notlce has been worked out correctly. Considering the request of the applicants, the bank regularised the loan account on payment of

¶20

dW"*t

¶21

sA.39612023

¶22

part dues. Even after such relief, applicants failed to^{pay further} instalments. The allegations^raised in the^{SA are not supported by} any valid evidence. It is an admitted^{fact that applicantsdefaulted} in paying EMIs as their bills were^{locked up in a Government} contract. Applicants failed to^{comply the conditionalorder passed by} this Tribunal on 26.09.2023 in 1A.2679/2023'^{Anyway, the auction} proceedings challenged in this SA were not materialised for^{want of} bidders.

¶23

Both counsels^prayed that orders^{may be passedbased on} records. Perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶24

Now the^points that arise for adjudication^are:-

¶25

i) tlhether the Applicants^made out^{any valid ground} for^quashing the measures initiated by the^{respondentbank against the SA} schedule property including^{the sale notice dated 23.08.2023 under} the provisions of Securitisation^Act?

¶26

ii) To what reliefr

¶27

Point No. (i):

¶28

Respondent bank^{reportedthat the auction sale scheduled on} 29.09.2023 has not taken^{place for want of bidders.Therefore, the} relief sought for in the sA^{against the impugned sale notice does not} subsist.

¶29

One of the^grounds taken^{by the applicants in the SA is that} respondent bank has^{issued two demandnotices i.e., one on} 02.02.2022 and another^{on 01,12.2022 and that the payments} made by them have^not taken^{into accountin the dues demanded} under the said notices.^{Respondent has not qiven any reason for} " OW'*'n

¶30

sA.39612023

¶31

issuing two demand notices. At the^{same time, the applicantstoo} have not brought to the notice of this^{Tribunalas to the specific} deposit that is alleged to^{have beenomitted while arriving at the} dues mentioned in the demand^{notices. Further,it is noticedthat} the demand raised in the second^{notice wasless than the one in the} first notice. Therefore, a mere statement^{without supporting} material will not make the contention^{as a valid ground. Therefore,} this contention is meritless. Similarly, applicants^{have not pointed} out that the issuance of two demand^{noticeshas causedany} substantial^prejudice to their interest.

¶32

Respondent bank filed sufficient material vide^{documents at} page Nos. 8 to 15 along with reply statement as to due compliance of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules,} 2002,

¶33

In view of the foregoing observations, applicant failed to^make out any valid ground to set aside the securitisation^proceedings taken by the respondent against the SA schedule^property and accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Poant No.(ii):

¶35

In the result, the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶36

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload in Web^Portal.

¶37

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th doy of August, 2024).

¶38

,ffi,#,,,/ PRESIDING OFFICER

m s nipun constructions v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m s nipun constructions v. Punjab National 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

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Appsdaily Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajeev Prabhakar Nagwekar

Icici Bank Limited versus Mihir

Central Bank of India versus M/S G-3 Technologies Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Kisan Rice Mill

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Dhingra