Dismissed

Mr Basavaboina prithvi raj v. Ms Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT29 Jan 2025SA/107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the applicant challenged the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of secured assets, alleging procedural violations. The Tribunal dismissed the application after finding no merit based on documentary evidence showing compliance by the

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 107 of 2022 is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

Mr Basavaboina prithvi raj versus Ms Edelweiss Asset… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL'II} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED^{THIS THE 29TH DAY OF ]ANUARY' 2025}

¶3

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B,COM, L'LB.(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr. Basavaboina^PrithviRai S/o Basavaboina^lairaj Aqe: 45 Years,^Occ:Business House No.^16-3-191/A Plot No.326,^{SurveYNo 145} Vasanth^{Nagar, HYdernagar} Kukat7allY^{M u n iciPa litY} Ranga ReddY^District.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. Edelweiss^AssetRe- construction^{ComPa nY Ltd'} Rep by its^{AuthorisedSignatorY} Miss. Vaishnavi^Macherla Reqd. office,^{1't Floor} tuZtweiss^{House,off CST Road} Kalina, Mumbai.

¶10

.. ' ' 'ResPondent'

¶11

: Mr. C. Yadagiri Counsel^{for the APPlicant} : Mr. R. Mr. R. R.^{Rajendra Prasad.} Counsel^{for Res7ondent}

¶12

: Mr. R. Mr. R. R.^{Rajendra Prasad.}

¶13

-:9-B-D-E-B:-

¶14

1, The^present Securitization^{Application is filed by the Applicants} u/s. 77 of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof Flnancial} fs2('"

dFr-

tcfl

SA No. 107/2022

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 assailing the Advocate Commissioner vacate notice dated 22.O4.2022.

¶20

The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in the SA, in brief, are that applicant is the borrower and applicant,s father is the guarantor to the loans availed from original lender HDB Financial Service Limited. Applicant committed default in payment of loan instalments due to losses in business coupled with Covid.19 pandemic woes, resulting in initiation of arbitration proceedings by the original lender Company. During the pendency of arbitration proceedings, respondent Company, in its capacity as the assignee of loan from the original lender, issued Section 13(2) notice under SARFAESI Act. Applicant resisted the same by objections which inter alia include rate of interest charged to the loan accounts. Respondent has not responded to the said objections and thus violated provisions oF Section 13(3A) of the Act. Though respondent company issued notice u/s 13(4), faited to fo ow the procedure under Rule 8(1) in serving/affixing the possession notice and Rule g(2) in publishing in two newspapers. Representatives of respondent Company came to the SA schedule property on 22.04.2022 fot taking the physical possession of the property through Advocate Commissioner appointed in Crl.M.p. No. 220 of 2020. The subject property is a residential house and applicant is residing there with his family and in case the respondent takes the physical possession, applicant would suffer irreparable loss.

¶21

The respondent Company filed reply statement. It is the submission of the respondent Company that applicant,s father is the co-applicant/guarantor for the loans availed from the .41urrr','., /^{(,/ .'r^.:-} l''/

¶22

sA No'^707/2022

¶23

¶24

o ris^{i n a II end e r' -'""'-"} ::: J,:::';:'::"::f^{'lffi :: ttl:} objections^{to the demand^no:;.r;;;r;,} has been^{dulv served} rhe^{possessionnoticedated rz'ru:r;";'"r;",} and^pubtishedin on^{the applicant,} ''"": ""1.:,"J^-rnouro newspapers^on Nava^{Telangana and Busttt""} "".r"a"^{notice, postal} 18.10.2021.^{tnototll'lt-. "on} ,l.rr.i ." and^publication acknowledsemen"' :"Yt-,t";; ***** itn tn" rupty statement' in^{newspapers are placed on rec{rl ul---.-} Therefore,^{thereis no truth in the averments} ^;;""',.ant^{of applicantas ito} the^{non-comPliance of provisions of relevantprovisionsin} serving^{the noticeu/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct and the-Rules} thereunder.DuringthevacancyofthepostofPresidingofficer of this^{Tribunal,applicantapproachedHon'bleHigh Court of} Telangana^{challenging the Advocate Commissionernotice for} taking the^{physicalpossessionnotice by filing W'P' No' 22262} of 2022.^{The Hon'bleHigh Courtdisposed of the W P' by} issuing a^{conditional stay ofexecution ofAdvocate} Commissioner^{Warrant subject to paymentof 15olo of the} outstanding^{dueswithin 30 days of the order' However'} applicant^{did not choose to comply the conditions of the Hon'ble} High Court'^{Applicantapproachedthis Tribunalwith unclean} hands and trying^{to defraud the respondent from recoveringits} rightful dues.

¶25

4- Learned counsel^{appearing for the applicantreported no oral} arguments.^{Perused the writtenargumentsfiled by the} respondent^{Company and the material placed on record'}

¶26

It is^{the plea of the respondent Company that there is no} irregularity or^{violationof provisionsof the SARFAESI.Actand}

0w"--"

SA No, tOZ/2022

the Rules thr com pa ny in rh e m eas,,.",'il,,illi.;:, i:: ;: :":: :T,ondent tawful dues. The responde* n,"= _::::tt", for recovery oF materia r i n su pport or its r,"J:, l:t rJ:1l?rrH::i ;[::J of the respondent that the applicant has comprying the orders of the Hon,bre Hieh ."r,iril:^:';rl J: establish his bonafides in discharging the liability. Hence the sA is devoid of any merit and acco rdingty prayed for dismissar of the same in the interest of justice.

¶31

Now the points that arise for determination are:_

¶32

Llrhethe.r ^the^{Applicantmadeout any valid} ground.for quashing the measures iiitiated by the respondent company u/s t 4 o.f the Securitisotion Act against the SA srh'idute property?

¶33

ii) To what reliefi

¶34

Point No. (i):

¶35

Applicant fired the present sA aleging vioration of Rures 8(1) and B(2) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in serving, affixing and publishing possession notice issued by respondent company u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated L2.L0.202L.^per contra, respondent placed substantive proof vide page Nos. 47 to 52 annexed to the reply statement to disprove violation of section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8(1) and g(2) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 including comptiance of sectiori 13(3A). Applicant has not disputed the documents brought on record by the respondent Company proving cornpliance of relevant provisions

¶36

/H#

¶37

SA No.^107/2022

¶38

of the^{Act and the Rules there under' Such is the situation; I do} not find^{any irregularityor violation on the part of the} respondent^{Companyin proceedingsu/s 14 of the SARFAESI} Act for^{appointment of Advocate Commissionerfor the purpose} of taking^{the physicalpossessionof the secured asset as} provided under^{law' Hence' I find no valid reason to interdict} the impugned^{proceedingsof the respondent Company to take} the^{physicalpossessionof the secured asset throughAdvocate} Commissioner^{appointedu/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct and hence} thesAisdevoidofanymerit.Accordingly,thesAisliableto be dismissed.

¶39

Point No.(ii):

¶40

In the result,^{SA fails and hereby dismissed'}

¶41

Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending' if any' shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs'}

¶42

Communicate^{a coPY of} this order to^{the partiesconcernedand} upload on^{Web Portal.}

¶43

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced 2lt' day ofJanuary,^2025).

¶44

court on this^lhe

¶45

K**

¶46

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Mr Basavaboina prithvi raj v. Ms Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Basavaboina prithvi raj v. Ms Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Mohan

Komminedi srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus P Rameshwar Prasad

Sri Sampath Kumar Kulkarni versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Devi Rice Traders

Bank of India versus M/S Meghana Enterprises