Dismissed

Mohd Liaqat Ali v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside possession proceedings via an advocate commissioner notice, the court held the applicant failed to prove non-compliance with procedural rules. Finding the NPA classification and service of notices valid, the court dismissed the application and vacated the stay.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the interim stay granted on 17.03.2023 was vacated.

Mohd Liaqat Ali versus Dcb Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.). M.A. PRES]DING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.127 OF 2023

¶5

Mr. Mohd. Liaqat Ati S/o Late Mohd. Laiq Ali Aged about 37 years, Occ:Business Prop. Of BFS Sales Corporation R/o H.No.3-3-7012, Khudbiquda Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500627

¶6

Versus

¶7

.......Applicant.

¶8

DCB Bank Limited R/o Collection Department H. No.8-2- 120/84 2nd Ftoor, lyo[hi Majestic Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-5000345

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent : Mr. c. Viswanath

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

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 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the proceedings of the respondent under Sec.13(4) of the Act, ZO02 and proposed action of taking physicat possession the application schedule property pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 04.03.02023 in crt.Mp No.t48/2022 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶13

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed business loan of Rs.1,62 crores and top-up loan of Rs.6 lakhs in 2015 and 2020 respectively against the mortgage of the application schedule //fu./^;g / 7 '/^q'\ '

¶14

Page 2 of4

¶15

sANo',.27l202l

¶16

property as security^{He was quite regular in payment till 2020but} due to^{Covld-19 pandemic situation there was no business resultinq} in losses^{and default in payment' Without considering the substantial} repayment^{of Rs.1.2O croresand the request to restructure the} account,^{respondent bank illegallydeclaredthe account as NPA'} Without^{issuing demand notice,respondentbank issued possession} noticewhichwasnotservedonapplicant,notamxedonpropertyand not^{publishedin two leadingnewspapersas perRules 8(1) and 8(2)} of the^{Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules'2OO2 (hereinafter} "Rules").^{The secured asset is a dwelling house of applicant and his} familymembersandrespondentistryingtotakephysicalpossession illegally.^{Hence thlsSA.}

¶17

The^{respondentbank filed replystatementalong with} documents.Thesubmissions,briefly,arethattheapplicantandother co-borrowerscommitteddefaultinrepayment.Accountwasdeclared as NPA as^{per RBI guidelines' The demand noticedated 29'17'2021} u/s 13(2)^{of the Act was personally served on aPplicantbesides} sending by^{post. The applicantneither madeany payment nor issued} any objections^{hence respondent bank issued possession notice dated} 22.03.2022 u/s^{13(4) of the Act, publishedthe samein 'Business} Standard' and^{'Mana Telangana' English and Telugunewspapers on} 23,03.2022 and^{got affixedon secured asset The respondentbank} has scrupulously^{followedthe procedure lawand henceSA is liable to} be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the^{applicantreported ordersmay be} passed based on record. Heard learned counsel^{for the respondent} bank and^perused the^{material broughton record.} 5. During the course of arguments,^{learned counsel for the} respondent white referrins to the documentt etur.d yiv-.rr:qutd

1/ ''Y

Page 3 of4

SA No.t2lzo2t

submit that the loan account was classified as NpA due to default committed by the applicant and co_borrowers. The apptication schedule property is the secured asset of the respondent bank and hence Securitization measures have been initiated against the same for realization of debt by issuing demand notice which was persona y served on the applicant. As no payment was made as per demand notice, respondent bank issued possession notice which has been duly served on applicant and others and the possession notice was published in English and Telugu newspapers besides affixing on secured asset. He would also contend that the application is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties i.e., the co_borrowers. He would further contend that the respondent bank has followed the due procedure as prescribed in the Act and Rules thereunder and hence SA is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶23

Now, the points for consideration are as follows : -

¶24

i) Whether the applicant made out any vatid qround to quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

The applicant admits of availing loan facilities from the respondent bank and default in repayment due to business losses on account of Covid-19 pandemic. The statement of account also confirms the irregularity in repayment. Hence the categorization of the account as NPA cannot be treated as illegal. The demand notice was sent by registered post to the applicant and other parties to the loan. However, the applicant personally received the demand notice and did not issue any objections nor did he clear the outstanding dues as per demand notice. The possession notice was served on him vide^postat acknowtedsement card ptaced on rccordfifrw::,ldepty

¶28

Page 4^{of 4}

¶29

SA No.127l2023

¶30

statement'^{The possession notice dated 22'03'2022waspublishedon} 23.03.2022in'Business^{Standard'and'ManaTelangana'Englishand} Telugu^{newspapers and got affixedon securedasset vide copies of} publication and^{photographs placed on record' I find no violationof} Secs.13(2),^{13(4) of the Act or Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of} 2002.^{The respondent being securedcreditor is entitledunderSec'14} of the^{Act, 2002 to approach learnedCMM/DM for orders on taking} the^{physicalpossessionof the secured asset and hence there is no} illegalitY^{in such action'}

¶31

8, In^{view of the above observations, I find that the applicant} failed to^{make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures} of the^{respondent againstthe SA scheduleproperty'Accordingly SA is} liable to^{be dismissed'}

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

g.Intheresult,theSecuritizationApplicationfailsandishereby dismissed.

¶34

Consequently,^{the interim stay granted on 17'03'2023shall} stand vacated^{and the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs.}

¶35

ll.communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in^{the official website'}

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the^{PS,corrected, signed ondpronounced by mein the opencourt on this} the 2gth ddy of^July,2025).

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mohd Liaqat Ali v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Liaqat Ali v. Dcb Bank Limited

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

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited