Dismissed

Rajan Prabhakar v. Union Bank of India

DRT14 Jun 2024SA/420/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by the legal heir of a deceased borrower. The court found that mandatory notices were issued and served or attempted to be served, negating the claim of procedural violation under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Rajan Prabhakar versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF ]UNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECU RITISATION APPLICATION No. 420 / 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr. Rajan Prabhakar S/o Late Mr. Sanyasi Rajan Aged about 34 years Occ: Business, H.No.2- 10-93 EC Nagar, Cherlapally Hyderabad-51. .....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India Assefs Recovery Branch Rep by its Chief Manager 249/3RT, 7't Floor Main Road, S.R. Nagar Hyderabad-500038.

¶9

Union Bank of India Assefs Recovery Branch Rep by its Authorised Officer 249/3RT, l't Floor Main Road, S.R. Nagar Hyderabad-500038.

¶10

... . . Respondents.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Ravikiran Singh. Counsel for Respondent : Ms. Sangeeta laiswal. /$*'"

¶12

SA No.420/2023

¶13

-:0-B-9-E-B:-

¶14

The^{present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants} uls. 17 of^{the Securitisation and Reconstructionof Financial}

¶15

Assets and^{Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002assailing} the Advocate^{Commissionervacate noticedated 23 09 2023} pursuant to Warrant^{in Crl.M.PNo 437 of 2023 on the file of} learned Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate,lvlalkajgiriDistrict}

¶16

The case of the^{applicant as per the avermentsin the SA' in} brief, is that^{applicantis the legalheir of deceased borrower} Sanyasi^{Raian and therefore,the action of respondent bankin} proceeding with^{the issuanceof vacate notice dated23 '09 '2023} through Advocate^{Commissionerappointed u/s 14 of the} SARFAESI^{Act for taking the physical possession of SA schedule} property without^{serving mandatory noticesu/s 13(2)and} 13(4) on the^{legal heirs of the deceasedborrower amounts to} vlolation of^{principlesof naturaljustice and applicant'sright of} redemption^{u/s 13(34).Even before obtaining legal heir} certificate from^{a competent Court, respondent proceeded for} auctlon of^{SA schedule property on 26'09 '2023vide auction} sale notice^{dated 74.08} '2023^{(wronglymentionedas} L4 .O8 .2022)^.

¶17

Respondent^{flled reply statement' The submissionsof the} Respondent^{Bank in brief, are that the possession noticeu/s} 13(4) dated^{79.o7.2023sent to the applicantreturned} unserved.^{The possessionnoticehas been affixed on the} secured asset^{and published in BUSINESS Lines and Mana} Telangana^{newspaperson 2f} '07^{'2023'The auctionproceedings} '/W*'n

¶18

SA No. 420/2023

¶19

scheduled on 26.09.2023 has not been materialised for want of bidders. The loan account has been classified as NpA as per RBI guidelines. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the securitisation steps initiated by the respondent bank and the applicant is not entitled to interdict the proceedings to take the physical possession of the property through Advocate Commissioner appointed u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act.

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶21

Now the points that arise for determination are: -

¶22

ll/hether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the measures initiated by the l"t respondent bank u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act against the SA schedule property?

¶23

ii) To what relie/?

¶24

Point No.^(i):

¶25

Applicant's main contention is that being the legal heir of deceased borrower, he has not been served with the mandatory notices before proceeding with taking the physical possession of the SA schedule property through Advocate Commissioner. In contrast, respondent bank placed on record photostat copy each of possession notice dated 2L.07.2023, postal registration receipt, returned envelope addressed to the applicant, affixture on secured asset and publication in two newspapers vide material papers at page Nos. 3 to 11 i'nn"'"ffi;itt

¶26

SA No.^420/2023

¶27

¶28

statement.^{The auction scheduledon 26'09'2023 was failed for} Wantofbidders.Inpara6ofthereplystatement,respondent bank^{statesthat it has come to its knowledge that the original} ownerofthemortgagedpropertyexpiredandtheapplicant herein^{is the legal heir and is residing in the saidpremises'A} perusal of^{possession notice dated19'07'2023shows that} demand^{notice u/s 13(2) was issued on 13'04'2023 on} borrower/guarantor/legal^{heirs of deceasedborrowerMr'} Sanyasi^{Rajan'Therefore' applicant'scontentionthat he has not} been served^{with any notices does not deserve acceptance'}

¶29

In^{view of the foregoingfacts and circumstances'I do not find} any illegality^{warranting interdictionof the proceedingsof} respondent^{bank to take the physical possession of the secured} assetthroughAdvocatecommissionerappointedu/s14ofthe SARFAESIAct.Accordingly,theSAisdevoidanymeritand liable to^{be dismissed'}

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

B. In the^{result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed' Consequently'} Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any, shall stand closed'} No order^{as to costs'}

¶32

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload^{in Web Portal'}

¶33

lDictatedtothesteno,signedandpronouncedbymeintheopencourt 'inin*,nrl4'h daY ofJune'2024)

¶34

7r5.*S, U (nnuesnwnR^KOTHE) PRESIDiNG^OFFICER

Rajan Prabhakar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Prabhakar v. Union Bank of India

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

Indian Bank versus Ms Shree Ganesh Bhojnalaya

Bank of Baroda versus M/S M R Enterprises and Others

Sri Mani Sankar Das And Anr. versus Idbi Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aarti Associates

Ms Southern Cashew Exporters versus Union Bank of India

Uco Bank versus Smt.Mauram Rajitha