This Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice. The court held that the bank followed all statutory procedures including demand notices and newspaper publication.
Petition dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; 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 _I AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE 29TH DAY OF JULY,2024
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
SA.No.77./2C22
1 . Sri Bhavesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, Aged 29 years, Occ:business, R/o_H.No.14- l-40O, New Aghapura, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad_SOO b01 2. Smt. Sunita Gupta, W/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, D/.o PrabhuDayalRunta, aged 53 years, ^ Ocq house wife, R/o H.No.14_1_400, New Aghapura, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad-SoO 001. ... Applicants Versus UCO Bank, Rep. by its Authorized Officer K-otiBranch, at Rear block of pushpanjali Complex, H.No.5-l-9Og, Koti, Hvderabad ... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicants : Si V.V. Ramana Counsel for Respondent Bank
: Sn1[.7. Subba Raju
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/ s. 1 7of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenei of the Respondent Bank in issuing the possession Noti respect of the schedule property and to declare ;"",&.1 ;-J
sA 77 /2022
The ApplicantNo. 1 company is doing bulk d.,rg business in pharmaceuticai line and he availed loan from the Respondent Bank for business purpose. He is regular in payment of instalments to the Respondent Bank but due to covid-19, the l"t Applicant could not run his busine ss. 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 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding the Applicants to repay a sum of Rs.33,35,915.29 ps. with immediate effect. The Respondent Bank has not forowed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2O02 and that the said possession notice is not published in vernacular language and it is arso not published in two leading newspapers and it is also not affixed on the schedule property, so the said possession notice is bad in law. Hence the SA.
The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant No.1 availed Term loan of Rs.34,gO,0OO/- by executing necessary loan documents and Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor to the said loan facility and she created mortgage in respect of the schedule property by deposit of title deeds. The loan account of the 1"t Applicant was classified as NpA as on 31.03 .2021. The Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05.10.2021 calling upon the Applicants to repay the entire dues of Rs.33,35,915.29 ps. and the said notice was sent to the Applicants and published in daily newspapers and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property' But the Applicants failed to repay the 10an amount within 60 days and so,possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the Act dt.O2.O3.2O22 was Applicants. The said notice wasThe said notice wasnotice waswas issued and the same./z affixed on the so published in in English andand Telugu daily n dent Bank has followed theBank has followed thehas followed thefollowed thethe procedure con of SARFAEST Act,2OO2 and Rules mad
Applicants. The said notice wasThe said notice wasnotice waswas so published in in English andand dent Bank has followed theBank has followed thehas followed thefollowed thethe of SARFAEST Act,2OO2 under Section 13(4) of the
sA77l2022
SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule property and there is no illegality and irregurarity committed by the Respondent Bank in taking steps under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point J\Io.lif :-
During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
- The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 company availed credit fac,ities from the Respondent Bank for business purpose and Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor to the said loan fac ities availed by the Applicant No.1 and thereafter, Applicant No. 1 committed default in repayment of loan amounts and so the roan account was crassified as NPA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent Bank issued Demand notice u/ s l3(2) of the Act dt'05' 10'2021 and the said notice was received by the Applicants but they are challenging the possession Notice dt.O2.O3.2O22 issued by the Respondent Bank.
- As the Applicants followed the 2OO2 in
e Respondent Bank has not e SARFAESI Act and Rules, n Notice dt.O2.O3.2O22, to
sA77 /2022
disprove the same, the Respondent Bank has filed necessary material documents along with the Reply {iled by them in the SA. As per the said documents, it is very clear that the Respondent Bank has issued Demand notice
dt'05'10.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act carling upon the Appricants to repay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the said notice was sent to the Appricants 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.o3.2022 under Rule 8(1) of Security 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.o6.o3.2022 and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. 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, 20O2 in taking possession of the schedule property u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 20o2. So, the Applicants have fa,ed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the
sA7712022
(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).
sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFF'ICER
ffi-'<br>J z s JrrL lo?t ;l
S^,., -.qgi
$*----=-
nw
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have established any valid ground for setting aside the possession notice dated 02.03.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank?
What relief is to be granted?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Bhavesh Kumar Gupta
Smt. Sunita Gupta
UCO Bank
Sri Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
