Dismissed

Manoj Kumar N v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

DRT26 Sept 2024SA/87/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed an application challenging the validity of a possession notice issued by HDFC under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the respondent followed the statutory procedure despite returned service, as the notice was duly published in newspapers and affixed on the property.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to set aside the possession notice dated 11.04.2022 was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Manoj Kumar N versus Housing Development Finance Corporation… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL -I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMB ER,2C.24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.87./2C22

¶4

Sri Manoj Kumar N. S/o RavindraNirmal Das, Aged, 44 years, Occ:pvt. Service, R/o flar No.210, Isr floor, Lake View Residency, Gaddiannaram(V), Saroornagar(M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Housing Development fin1nce^{CorporationLtd. (HDFC),} #3-6-310, Hyderguda Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : Sri Kranthi Kumar k. Counsel for Respond.ent : Sn S. -lfagesh Reddg

¶10

ORDER

¶11

1' This Application is fired u/s.17of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action of the Respondent in issuing^possession Notice dt. 1 1.04.2022 in respect -of the schedure property and to declare the invalid.

¶12

) The averments made by follows: ft$;m;l The Applicant availed Tr sPp by mortgaging the schedule propert5r but to Covid-19, t could not repay some loan instalments classified as NpA.

¶13

sA 87 /2022

¶14

The Respondent issued possession Notice dt. 1 1.04.2022 without issuing demand notice and without considering the payments made by the Applicant. The said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and hence the possession notice is null and void. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent fired their Reply denying a, the adverse alregations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property and committed default in repayment of loan outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. The Respondent issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Acr on lO.Ol.2O22 calling upon the Applicant to repay the entire dues but the said notice was returned as the Applicant unclaimed thesame and so the said demand notice was published in two daily newspapers. But the Applicant failed to repay the loan amount within 60 days and so, possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the Act dt.11.O4.2O22 was issued and the said notice also returned unserved. The said notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r and also published in English and Telugu daily newspapers on 13.04.2022. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and, Rures made thereunder in proceeding under section 13(a) of the SARFAES r Act, 2002 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

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

¶17

whether th-e Applicant has established ang ualid ground. for setting aside the Notice dt. i 1.04.2022 issued. bg the

¶18

Respondent To what ts * ?G SEP XIzI

¶19

't-:,U

¶20

sA 87 12022

¶21

Point JVo.(if :-

¶22

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

¶23

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant ava ed housing loan from the Respondent and thereafter, committed default in repayment of loan amounts and so the loan account was crassified as

¶24

NPA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant mortgaged the schedule property in security of the roan fac ities availed

¶25

by him. As the Applicant is contending that he has not received demand notice from the Respondent and the possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property, to disprove the same, the Respondent filed materiar documents along with Reply liled by them.

¶26

¶27

As per the said documents, it is very clear that the Respondent has issued Demand notice dt.lO.Ot.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the Applicant 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 Applicant through Regd. post but the said notice was returned by the Applicant with endorsement hnclaimed,and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers, so it can be deemed that the Respondent has issued demand notice to the Applicant and the Applicant received the same. When there is no response to the demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice . dt.l1.O4.2022 under Rule 8(1) of securit,r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for taking possession of the schedule E^{said notice was sent} to the Applicant through R Iicant has unclaimed the said notice. The said was FtrPblished and Telugu daily newspapers dt. 13.04 '^{T$ sw fflfn.} notice was also affixed on the schedule pro as depicted from t tographs filed by the

¶28

W,t-f#

¶29

sA 87 /2022

¶30

Respondent. So, the Applicanthas failed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the schedule properry. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure raid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule properry u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶31

Polnt No,(fi)t

¶32