Dismissed

Ms Durga Pharma v. Uco Bank

DRT29 Jul 2024SA/76/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a Possession Notice. The court held that the Respondent Bank followed the statutory procedure regarding notice issuance, publication, and affixation, thereby justifying the possession proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Application No.76/2022 was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Ms Durga Pharma versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 29TH DAY OF JULY.2c.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.76./2022

¶5

1.M/s Durga Pharma carrying on business, H.NO.4-4-250/E, InderBagh, Hyderabad_so0 O9S f.p^{ty its ProprietrixSmt. Shivangi Agarwal,} D/o Manoj Kumar Agarwal, aged 3l years, R/o Flat No.201A, Tirumala Towers,

¶6

H.No.7-1-215 lBlc, D.K. Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-SOO 016.

¶7

Smt. Sunita Gupta, W/o Shiv Kumar Gupta,

¶8

D/o PrabhuDayalRunta, aged 53 years,

¶9

Occ: house wife, R/o H.No. 14-l-400, New Aghapura, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad-SOO 001.

... Applicants

Versus

UCO Bank,

Rep. by its Authorized Ofhcer

¶14

KotiBranch, at Rear block of pushpanjali

¶15

Complex, H.No.5- 1-9O8, Koti, Hyderabad

¶16

... Respondent Bank

¶17

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶18

: Sri V.V. Ramana

¶19

: Sn 1V.7. Subba Raju

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Application is hled u/ s. 17of the Securitizatio nstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of t, 2002

¶22

(SARFAESI Act, 2002) challenging the ac ln issuing the Possession Notice dt.02.03. edule property and to declare the same as ill ?",9"rit[lt 201 X

¶23

W--$r,ry'

¶24

sA76/2022

¶25

The averments made by the Applicants in brief are as follows: The ApplicantNo. I company is doing bulk d.ug business in pharmaceutical line and they availed roan from the Respondent Bank for business purpose. They are regular in payment of instalments to the Respondent Bank but due to covid-r9, the 1"t Appricant could not run their business. However, the Applicant No. 1 is trying to repay the loan amount to the Respondent Bank. on 02.o3.2022, the Respondent Bank issued Possession Notice u/s l3(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding the Applicants to repay a sum of Rs.5S,59,31g.66 ps. with immediate effect. The Respondent Bank has not followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 and that the said possession notice is not published in vernacular language and it is also not published in two leading newspapers and not afrrxed on the schedule property, so the said possession notice is bad in raw. Hence the SA-

¶26

3 The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying arl the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant No. 1 availed Term loan of Rs.50,00,000/_ by executing necessary loan documents and Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor to the said roan facility and she created mortgage in respect of the schedule property by deposit of title deeds. The loan account of the 1st Applicant was classified as NPA as on 31.03.202r. The Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05. r 0.202 1 calring upon the Appricants to repay the entire dues of Rs.55,99,31g.66 ps. and the said notice was sent to the Applicants and arso pubrished in two da y newspapers and the copy of the said notice was affixed on the schedule property. But the Applicants failed to repay the ount within 60 days and so, Possession Notice u/s 13( .2022 was issued and the same was served on pli . The tice was affixed on the schedule property also 'shed in ish and Telugu daily newspapers. Thus, the owed the procedure

¶27

sA76/2022

¶28

contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13( ) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule property and there is no illegality and irregularity committed by the Respondent Bank in taking steps under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶29

Heard both sides. Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶30

i. tohether the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.02.03.2o22 issued bg the Respondent Bank against the schedule propertA?

¶31

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶32

Point JVo.(i):-

¶33

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

¶34

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 company availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank for business purpose and Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor to the said loan facilities availed by the Applicant No. 1 and thereafter, Applicant No. 1 committed default in repayment of loan amounts and so the loan account was classified as NPA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent Bank issued Demand notice u/ s 13(2) of the Act dt.05.10.202 1 and the said noti received by the Applicants but they are challenging the t.O2.O3.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank.

¶35

Ml ,i \q.

¶36

sA7612022

¶37

As the Applicants are contending that the Respondent Bank has not followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned Possession Notice dt.O2.03.2022, to disprove the same, the Respondent Bank has filed necessary material documents along with the Reply filed by them in the SA. As per the said documents, it is very clear that the Respondent Bank has issued Demand notice dt.05.lO.2O2l uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the Applicants to repay the entire outstanding dues within 6O days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and it was also published in two daily newspapers. It is not the case of the Applicants that subsequent to the receipt of the demand notice, they paid any amounts to the Respondent Bank. So the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.O2.03.2022 under Rule 8(1) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for taking possession of the schedule property and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and it was duly served on the Applicants as evidenced by the postal track reports as filed by the Respondent Bank. The said notice was also published in English and Telugu daily newspapers dt.06.O3.2022 and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted from the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. So, the Applicants have failed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the schedule property. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and-against the Applicants

¶38

Point No.(il):-

¶39

sA76/2022

¶40

In the result, sA 7612022 is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dctated to the P'A, transcribed. bg her, corrected, signed and. pronounced. by me in the open court on this the 2gthdaA of Julg, 2024).

¶43

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

ffi%
i t-:i. zeJUL Nt .-l;
**=,rr"*iW
S;rrSH

¶45

rssdnsglis{rar - oRr-t,^{ll !'it f RP' u9'AO'}

¶46

Ms Durga Pharma v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Durga Pharma v. Uco 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

Jambula Ravi versus State Bank of India

Bank of India versus Dr. Bheemagani Lakshmi Narayana

State Bank of India versus Mr. G. Devender

Sri Bhavesh Kumar Gupta versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus Era Educational Society

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kesupaka Seetha Rama Raju