The applicant challenged the auction sale notice issued by the bank regarding her father's mortgaged property, claiming it was ancestral. The tribunal held she failed to prove the property was joint family property and dismissed the application as the auction was stayed.
The Securitization Application (SA.No.55 of 2022) was dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.IAT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.55,/2022
Smt. Navneet Agarwal, D/o Shankarlar Agarwal, Aged 35 years, Occ:house wife, R/o N902, PurvaBiumont Apartment, Singanallur, Trichy road, Coimbatore.
..Applicant.
Tersus
Rep. by its Authorised officer, Stressed Assets Management branch-ll,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
..Respondents.
Counsel for the RespondentsNo.l&2 : Respondents No.3 :
2 5 JUild -:ORDER:1. This application is filed by the Applicant Act, 2OO2, challenging the Auction Sale Notice dt.O5.Oi:i#i"S; ed by the Respondents No. 1&2 fixing the auction of the application schedule
2
property on 25.03.2022 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:
The Applicant's grand father Sri Late Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal was doing cloth business at Secunderabad with the capital investment having inherited through his father and from the proceeds of the said business, he has raised the Applicant's father and his one brother and four sisters. During the lifetime of the grand father of the Applicant, her father established the business of steel manufacturing. After the demise of the grandfather of the Applicant, his two sons and four daughters have oraily partitioned the properties and from the share of the Applicant's father, he has established the said business. The father of the Applicant also purchased the properties from the ancestral source only and he himself has not made any selfacquisition of the property. The father of the Applicant has purchased the schedule propertywhich is non-agricultural land to an extent of Acres 3.39 guntas at Sy.Nos. 157&158, yellagiri Village, Choutuppal. The Applicant has demanded for partition of the properties and since the father of the Applicant has avoided the same, the Applicant was constrained to file partition suit on the file of Hon'ble XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court vide O.S.No.248/2021 and the same is pending for consideration. The Applicant is not aware of the fact that the schedule property is mortgaged to the Respondent Bank and hence the bank was not made as party to the said suit. The value of the schedule property is more than Rs.20 crores and the Respondents NO.1&2 are trying to sell the same for a meagre sum of Rs.6.25 crores. Hence, the SA.
adverse 1S joint
3
family property. The saidShankarlai Agarwal purchasedthe schedule propertythrough Regd' Sale DeedNo'247/1989 and the recitals in the saidsale deed also do not indicatethat Mr.Shankarlal Agarwaipurchasedthe said propertyon behalf of Joint family(HuF) and ShankarlalAgarwal being the absolute ownerof the schedule property, deposited the titledeedswith the 1"t RespondentBank as a security to the creditlimits sanctionedto Respondent No'3 borrower company. Sincethe loanaccountsof Respondent No'3becameNPA w.e.f. 19.03.2021, theRespondent Bank issued a demandnotice dt.25.O3.2O21 u/s13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 callingupon the borrower, itsguarantors and mortgagors to pay the outstandingdues within 60 daysbutthey failed to do so'Subsequently' theRespondentsNo'1&2issuedpossessionnoticedt.l6'09.2o2|in respect of thescheduleproperty. Thereafter Respondents NO'1&2 issued Prior toSaleNotice dt.05.02.2022and thereafter alsoissued Auction Sale Noticedt.ll.O2.O22for conducting auctionof the schedule propertybut the proposedauctiondid not take place as interim stay wasgrantedin the presentSA' Respondents No'1&2 are not parties to thepartition suit filed by the Applicant'Accordingly' RespondentsNO.1&2 prayedfor the dismissalof the SA'
availing suflicienttime forfeited.
ii) To uhat relieJ?
Point No.(ll:-
I:t
5
Polnt No.lii):-
(Dctated to the d.aA of June,
siqned and pronounced byme irl the opefi court on this the 2&'
sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
DOPi./1oP\ia
/-.-1 I
,A
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant is entitled to challenge the Auction Sale Notice issued by the Respondents against the mortgaged schedule property?
To what relief?
Whether the Applicant has established that the schedule property is joint family property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Navneet Agarwal
State Bank of India
M/ s Navneeta Steels P.Ltd.
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
