Dismissed

Ms Kommineni Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Uco Bank

DRT3 Mar 2025SA/104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application, the applicants challenged a possession notice on grounds of non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and alleged NPA classification contrary to RBI guidelines. The court found the bank's compliance satisfactory and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No. 104 of 2022 dismissed; Interlocutory Applications closed if any.

Ms Kommineni Infotech Pvt. Ltd. versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECO\ AT HYDE(iIIJRIBUNAL^{- II}

¶2

DATED THIS THE THRID DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT; sH. RAMESHWAR KoTH PRESIDTNG 5ir?.t?'^{L'LB (Hons.), M.A.}

¶3

SECURITISATIoN APPLICATIoN No. 104 oF 2022

¶4

M/s. Kommineni Infotech pvt. Ltd. Flat No.6j4, Annapurna Block Aditya Enclave, Ameeroet Hyderabad, Rep. By its Director Kom m inen i^praveen Kumat,

¶5

Kommineni^praveen Kumar S/o Sri Late K.V. Ramanappa Aged about 42 years H. No. B-2- 12O/ 114/96 Flat No. 201, Block-A Sri Nilayam, Asian Manor Road No. 2, Banjara Hi s Hyderabad-5O0034.

¶6

Ms, Pranathi Kommineni D/o Smt. Late Kommineni Uma Flat No. 102, Ground Floor Tower 17 LH, Lanco Hills Sy. No.201, Manikonda lagir (V) Rajendranagar (M), Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶7

.......Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

UCO Bank, SD Road Branch D. No. 9-1-38 YMCA Complex Sardar Patel Road Secunderabad Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶10

by its Authorised its Authorised Authorised Officer. ,,.,,Respondent. Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. B. Sreenivasa Reddy, Counsel for Respondent : Ms. P.S. Sujatha. ,y'ft'*-<o /// )r'

. sA 104/2022

-:ORDER:'

The Applicant^{filed the present SecuritisationApplication u/s 17} of the^{Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and} Enforcement^{of SecurityInterestAct' 2OO2 (hereinafterreferred} to as^{"SARFAESIAct 2002")assailing possessionnotice dated} 07 .o3.2o22^{issued by the respondentin respectof SA schedule} properties.

¶15

The case^{of the applicants,In brief, is that the applicants have} availed a^{cash credit limit of Rs.scrorresand BankGuarantee} limlt of Rs.2.5^{crores. They were regular in repaymentof} substantial except^{duringCovid.19Pandemicperioddue to} unfavourable market conditions.^{Respondentissued the} impuqned^{possessionnoticewithout any prior mandatorynotice} uts 73(2') of the SARFAESI^{Act.Respondent has not affixed the} possession notice u/r 8(1) and 8(2)^published the^possession notice u/4 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules.} Further, in spite of the secured assets not^being lost^their market value, respondent bank classified the loan account^as NPA. Therefore, the notices issued under the^provisions of the Act and the Rules are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the RBI.

¶16

Respondent filed reply statement denying non-compliance of procedure laid down u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)} Rules, 2OO2. Respondent bank annexed material papers vide page Nos.373-379 in support of compliance of Section 13(2) in serving the demand notice and^page Nos. 669 to 676 in support of serving, affixing and^publishing the^possession notice as per

¶17

/?9t9.'-.>e / Y-5'"

¶18

sA to4/2022

¶19

the procedure laid down u/r B(1) and B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Respondent further clarified that the NPA classification was in strict compliance of the RBI guidelines governing the field. Hence there is no irregularity in the securitisation measures initiated against the secured properties for recovery of outstanding dues.

¶20

¶21

Heard both counsels. perused the written arguments filed by the respondent bank and the material placed on record.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants while reiterating the pleadings in the securitisation application, prayed for setting aside the impugned possession notice as the very classification of loan account as NPA is quite contrary to the RBI guidelines.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that since there is no irregularity either in the classification of loan account as NpA or in the compliance of the provisions of the relevant sections of the Act and the Rules in serving the demand notice or the possession notice, applicants cannot interdict the proceedings for recovery of its legitimate dues as per law.

¶25

Now the points that arise for adjudication are: -

¶26

Ilhether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the possession notice dated 07.03.2022 issued under section l3(4) of Securitisation Act?

i, fonorrrti 1@>9

sA to4l2022

Point No.(i):

The^{applicants' contentions as to non-service of demand notice} u/s 13(2)^{of the Securitisation Act' affixture and publication of} possession^{notice in terms of Rules 8(1) and B(2) of Security} Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules' 2OO2 do not deserve acceptance} inViewofthematerialpapersproducedbytherespondentbank along^{withthe reply statement'Thesedocuments havenot been} disputed^{by the applicants'Applicantshave not chosento place} on record^{the relevantRBI guidelines' if any' in support of their} pleadings that^{market value of secured assets doeshave} anything^{to do with the classification of loan accountas NPA'} However,^{the respondent being the secured creditoris boundby} RBI^{guidelineswith regard to classifying the loan account as NPA} on default.^{Hence such actions cannot be faulted with'}

¶31

Under^{the abovefacts and circumstances'applicants have failed} to make out^{any valid groundto quash the possessionnotice} dated 07.03.2022'^{Accordingly'the SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

¶34

In the result,^{the SA failsandis herebY dismissed.}

¶35

ConsequentlY,^{InterlocutorY} Applications Pending^{if anY, shall} stand closed.^{No order as to} costs.

¶36

t2. Communicate^{a coPY of this} order to the Parties^concernedand upload in Web^Portal'

¶37

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed^{ond pronounced by me in theo'} urt on this^{the- 3d} doy ol Morch,^2025.) ffirt"f

¶38

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Kommineni Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kommineni Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 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

Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) versus M/S Kamala Fashions

Icici Bank Limited versus Sree Ganesh Filing Station

Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) versus M/S Prime Agencies

Indusind Bank Limited versus Akula Venu

Icici Bank Limited versus Goldcrest Educational Society

Axis Bank Limited versus Trivedi Automobiles