Applicant challenged the bank's possession notice under SARFAESI Act, citing procedural defaults and business losses. Tribunal found notices were validly served and no irregularity established.
Securitisation Application dismissed; interlocutory applications stood closed.
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 -II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OFAUGUST, 2024
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.),M.A' PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATION NO. 419 OF 2023
Between:
Smt. Chennu Swapna W/o Chennu Venkata Haribabu Aged about 42years Occ: House Wife H.No.8-3-237/7/26 La ksh mi Na rasim ha Naga r Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
.......Applicant.
And
Union Bank of India Rep. by its Authorised Officer Plot No.8, Krishna Reddy Naqar New Bowenpally Secunderabad-s1o 001. .....Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.D. Raghavulu. Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Sangeeta laiswal& Associates.
-:ORDER:-
sA 4L9 / 2023
2
respondent bank fromtaking possessionof SA scheduleproperty pursuant to Advocate Commissioner notice dated22.09.2023 appointed in Crl.M.P.No.1730 of2023 onthe file of the learnd XIV Addl. Chief MetropolitanMagistrate atNampally.
|,/
sA4L912023
t4.06.2023'Both the auctionswere failed for want of bidders' Therefore,there is no flaw on the part of the respondentin issuingthemandatorynoticesundertheSecuritisationActand the Rulesthereunder'
sA 4L912023
Point No.(i):
B. There is no denial that the applicant committed defaultin repayment. Admittedly applicant did not complywith the conditional orderspassed bythis Tribunal thrice. The contentions of applicant with respect tonon-compliance ofprovisionsof Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct andRules8(1) and B(2) of Security Interest(Enforcement)Rules, 2002 falls flat in view of the documentary evidenceplaced onrecord bythe respondent videpages 1 to 12 annexed to the list ofdocuments filed on 20.11.2023. Therefore, no irregularityis established against the respondent in thesecuritisationsteps initiatedby it for recovery of outstanding duesfrom the applicant.Accordingly, applicant failed to make outany valid groundfor intervention in theproceedings initiated for taking thephysicalpossessionof the secured assetpursuant to theimpugned advocate commissioner notice. Hence the SAis liable tobe dismissed'
Point No.(ii):
(Dictoted to the Steno, corrected, signed andpronounced byme in the opencourt on this the 29th doy ofAugust, 2024).
MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the securitisation steps by the respondent bank u/s 13(4) against the overdue property under the SARFAESI Act?
What relief is appropriate in the circumstances?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Chennu Swapna
Union Bank of India
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
