Dismissed

Tummala Anitha v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

DRT2 Feb 2024SA/90/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge to the bank's action in taking physical possession of secured property via an advocate commissioner, ruling that the bank duly followed procedural requirements for service and publication of the possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand disposed of.

Tummala Anitha versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.9O,/2C22

¶4

Smt. TummalaAnitha, W/o Shekhar Reddy, R/o Flat No.115, Vinay City Apartments, Anand Nagar X Roads, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad-SOO 068.

¶5

Versus Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

.. . Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Si K. Kranthi Kumar Counsel for the Respondent Bank : SrlV. Sethumadhaua SrlV. Sethumadhaua

¶9

: SrlV. Sethumadhaua SrlV. Sethumadhaua Ro,o

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action of the RespondentBank in taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.p.No .l3S l22 on the file of CMM, Ranga declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

The t, in brief, are that:

¶13

The .d'ak IZ[[BZ$?'q y

¶14

sA9O/2O22

¶15

The Applicant availed housing of Rs.24 lakhs from the Respondent Bank in the year 2015but due to financial problems, she could not pay some instalments and the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 arrd issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 claiming entire amount due. The Respondent Bank did not serve any possession notice u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 nor publish the said notice in two leading newspapers as stipulated under Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2O02. Without serving the possession notice, the Bank proceeded under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and took steps for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of CMM, R.R. District in Crl.M.P.No.l35l22 which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

¶17

The Respondent Bank fiied its Reply statement denying all the adverse allegations made by the Applicant and contended that after availing home loan of Rs.24 lakhs from the Respondent Bank for purchase of schedule property, the Appticant became irregular in payment of loan instalments and as such, the loan account was declared as NPA. The Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 dt. 18.09.2019 calling upon the Applicant to pay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days and the said notice was returned with the endorsement tnclaimed,. As there is no response from the Applicant, possession notice dt.04.12.2019 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 was issued and the said notice was also unclaimed by the Applicant and the Respondent Bank published the said notice in Mana Telangana and Business Stan pers and also got affixedthe same on the the Respondent Bank has duly complied 8(1-)(2) of ity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. fhs :Ret filed Crl.M.P.No.l35l22 u/s 14 of the file RR. District for appointment of advocate on of the schedule property

¶18

sA90/2022

¶19

and challenging the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, the Applicant filed Wp.No. 19430/22 before the Hon,ble High Court of Telangana and later the Applicant has withdrawn the said writ petition' The Respondent Bank has thus fo,owed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in taking possession of the schedule propert5r and also in taking measures u/ s 14 of the Act and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

Heard both the Ld. Counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶21

¶22

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶23

uthether the Applicant has mad"e out ualid ground s for setting aside the possessjon notice d.t.04. j2.201g under Section rcft) of tl'te SARFAESI Act, 2002 and steps initiated. by tte Bank for taking phgsical possession of tLe SA schedule propertg?

¶24

i, To what relieJ?

¶25

Polnt No.lll:

¶26

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra. 6. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed housing loan of Rs.24 lakhs from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage in the year 2015 and thereafter ent of loan instalments and the respondenr'Bank declared. the loan account as NPA and initiated proceedings ynder SARFAESI Act for recovery of outstanding dues.

¶27

sA 90/2022

¶28

The contention of the Applicant is that she has not received the possession notice allegedly issued by the Respondent Bank and the said notice was neither pubrished in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule propert5r and without following the procedure laid down under the SARFESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, the Respondent Bank is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld. CMM, R.R. District.

¶29

The respondent Bank in order to establish that it has duly followed theprocedure in taking physical possession of the schedule property and also in issuing possession notice us/ l3(4) of the Act, Iiled certain material documents along with the Reply statement filed by them. The Respondent Bank proceeded u/s. 13(4) ofthe SARFAESI Act by issuing Possession Notice dt.04.12.2o1g and the same was sent to the Applicant but the said notice was returned unclaimed. So, the said notice was published in Business Standard and Mana Telangana daily newspapers dt.lO.l2.2olg including one in vernacular language and the same was also got affixed on the schedule property as prescribed under Ruie g(1)&(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank has initiated steps before the Ld. cMM, R.R. District for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARAFAESI Act,2OO2. The above said material documents viz., copies of paper publication and photograph showing affxture of the notice on the schedule property filed by the Respondent Bank clearly prove that the Bank has duly foliowed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI A Rules, 2002, while issuing the demand notice, also in taking steps for appointment of u/s 14 the Act. 02 F!s 2C24 9. So, that the Applicant has failed to aside the proceedings initiated by the

¶30

sA 90/2022

¶31

Respondent Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act against the schedule property so, the present SA frled by the Applicant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingry,this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent Bank.

¶32

Polnt No.lil)r

¶33

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed. bg her, arrected., signed and. pronounced bg me in th.e open court on this tfe 2"ddaA of February, 2024).

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFT'ICER

¶38

ff?VW

¶39

Asst. Registrar DRT.I, H"DERABA9.

Tummala Anitha v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tummala Anitha v. Union Bank of India (Andhra 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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Logistics

State Bank of India versus M/S Pj Agro Tech Limited

State Bank of India versus Shri Gugloth Rajesh Naik

Indian Bank versus Mrs. N. Visalakshi

State Bank of India versus M/S Crescent Jewellers

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani