Dismissed

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT3 Oct 2024SA/95/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal of a Section 17 SARFAESI Act application rejected the applicants' claim that the respondent bank violated procedural requirements in issuing a possession notice. The tribunal found the applicants failed to prove they submitted objections to the demand notice, and the proceedings followed the statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

The Selected Application (SA 95/2022) is dismissed and any pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2C)24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.95/2C.22

¶4

1.M/s Blue park Sea Foods p.Ltd. Rep. by its MdNerellaHem".rthrrrg. Kumar, S/o NVR Mohan Rao, aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o O.wo.S1Si, Kurumuddali, pamarru Krishna District.

¶5

Blue park Sea Foods p.Ltd. Rep. by its Director VoletiVenkata Ramesh S/o Venkata Naray".rr, Occ:business, R/o n.fVo.S_SB,"g.J-4g^y.r", Kurumuddali, pamarru Krishna District.

¶6

... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer IAMB^{Branch, 5-9_76,} Prabhat Towers, Chapal Road, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad_SOO 001

¶9

... Respondent Bank

¶10

C_ounsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respond.ent bank

¶11

: Sri T. Vijag Kumar. : Sri Hai prasad. pod.ita

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security_ Interest Act, 2oo2 action of the Respondent in issuing possession No in respect of the schedule

¶14

property and to dec rF;. arbitrary.

¶15

The averments {,,nJolpffiE#yl, b,il as follows: ,S Iie* .o.'tf' e"rg, W

¶16

sA9sl2022

¶17

The Applicants availed credit facilities^{from the RespondentBank in the} year 2O09 and they are paying the instalments^{regularly but due to} Covid-19, they failed to pay some^{instalments and so, the loan account} of the Applicants became NPA and the^{Respondent Bank publishedthe} demand notice dt. 14 .06.2021 in the newspapers. The^Applicants submitted their objections in response to the said demand^{notice but} without considering the said objections raised by the Applicants,^the Respondent Bank proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dt.15.O3.2O22&, 16.03.2022 in one notice and the said^possession notice is not valid and iiable to be set aside. The said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and hence the impugned possession notice isnull and void. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicantsavailed credit facilities from the Respondent bank and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the RBI guideiines. The Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/ s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 14 .06.2021 calling upon the Applicants to repay the entire dues and the said notice was personally served on the Applicants and others and it was also published in two daily newspapers. The Applicants have not submitted any objections to the said demand notice as alleged by them. As the applicants failed to repay the loan amount as demanded within 60 days, the Bank was constrained to issue Possession Notice u/s t3(a) of the Act dr.15.O3.2O22 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through regd. post. The said notice was schedule property and also published in The Hindu on 07.O9.2022. Thus, the Respondent ed ure contemplated 2OO2 an s made thereunder in proceeding under 13P4)Ufi. UlhF If Act, 2002 against the

¶19

sA9s/2022

¶20

schedule property and there are no violations. AccordinglyRespondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

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

¶22

whether the Applicants haue established ana ualid ground for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.1s/ i6.03.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank against the sclrcdule propertg?

¶23

To what relief ?

¶24

Polnt lVo.(if :-

¶25

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

¶26

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage of schedule property. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent Bank issued demand notice to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said notice. But the contention of the Applicants is that they raised objections in response to the said demand notice dt.14.06.2021 but without considering the said objections, the Respondent Bank issued Possession notice dt.15.03.2022 and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid and the Bank violated Sectionl3(3)(A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Per contra, the Respondent Bank contended that the Bank has not received any objections allegedly sent by the Appiicants and g1r of the said objections by the Bank does not arise ion notice is legal and valid.

¶27

sA95/2022

¶28

As the RespondentBank is denying the submission of objectionsby the Applicants in response to the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Act, the burden lines on the Applicants to establish that they have submitted their objectionsin response to the demand notice, to the Respondent Bank. Along with SA, the Applicants have filed only one document i.e. copy of possession notice dt. 15/ 16.03.2022. If really, the Applicants have submitted any objections in response to the demand notice dt. 14.06.202 1 as alleged by them, the Applicants are expected to estabiish as to what was the mode of sending the said objections to the Respondent Bank and to file the documents to prove the same. But the Applicants have not hled any material documents to establish that they have submitted their objections to the demand notice issued by theRespondent Bank u/s 13(2) of the Act. So in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants have not submitted any objections in response to the demand notice dt.14.06.2021 issued by the Respondent Bank as alleged by them and the said contention is false.

¶29

In the demand notice dt.14.O6.2O21, the Respondent Bank demanded the Applicants to pay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Admittedly, the Applicants have not paid any amounts after receipt of the said notice issued by the Respondent Bank. Hence the Bank issued possession notice dt. 15/ 16.03.2O22 to the Applicants and there is no dispute about the fact that the Applicants received the said notice. As per the documents filed by the Respondent Bank, it is clear that the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs fiIed by the Bank. So, the Applicantshave failed to establish any ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the schedule property. Hence in the_gj ,^{it is quite clear that} the Respondent Bank has procedure laid down under the provisions of AESI ct an s, 2OO2 in taking possession of the sch DroDertv u/s l3(4[ the SARFAESI Act, ^0 3 gCI mx 'a'

¶30

sA9sl2022

¶31

2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in^favourof the^Respondent Bank and against the Applicants.

¶32

Point No.(ti)t

¶33

In the result, SA 9512022 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 partiesconcerned.}

¶35

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg ler, conected, signed and pronounced by^me in^{the open} court on this the 3'dday of October, 2024).

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(G. GOPI cHANDf PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

IRPE "oP^I 1tr.^{S.lie(^>,^}

¶39

""1:iitig:'#'.'

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Blue Park Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

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

State Bank of India versus Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kasi Reddy Venna

Dudemetla Srinivasulu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr . M Venkatesh

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gogineni Media Pvt. Ltd.

Veladi Bhadraiah versus State Bank of India