Dismissed

B. Anil Kumar Goud and another v. Hdb Financial Services Limited

DRT18 Jul 2025SA/127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed under Section 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicants challenged the recovery measures initiated by the respondent bank. The Prediding Officer held that the applicants failed to prove the alleged irregularity in the issuance or communication of the demand and possession notices. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed for lack of merit; interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed with no order as to costs.

B. Anil Kumar Goud and another versus Hdb Financial Services… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-']L AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons. ), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLIATION No. L27 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr. B. Anil Kumar Goud 2. Mr. Raj Kumar Goud Bingi.

¶7

.......Applicants.

¶8

And

¶9

HDB Financial Services Limited Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶10

....Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Appticants Counsel for Respondent

¶12

Mr. M.R.B. Manikandan.

¶13

Mr. C. Vishwanath.

¶14

:ORDER:

¶15

Mr. B. Anil Kumar Goud, S/o Sri prabhu Lingam Goud, aged 65 years, H. No.3-tZ-74/7, plot No. Survey No.66/7, Rocktown Colony, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District and Mr. Raj Kumar Goud Bingi, S/o Sri prabhu Lingam Goud, aged 58 years H. No. 3-72-74/7, plot No. Survey No. 66/7, Rocktown Colony, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, filed the present Securitisation Application u/s L7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2

¶16

(hereinafter referred to as^..SARFAESI Act,,) assailing the /t%^l'',-'-'f U/^\Bv

¶17

sA 12712024

¶18

eviction notice dated^{25.01.2024 issued by the Advocate} Commissioner^{appointed in Cr. M.P.No' 512 of 2023 on the file} of the learned^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L B'} Nagar and the^{PossessionNoiice dated2L'10 '2023against the} SA schedule Property.

¶19

The case of the^{applicants as per the avermentsof} securitisation^{application,in brief, is that applicantsare the} guarantors and mortgagors^{to the loan availedby M/s' Raj Bar} and Restaurant.^{Duringthe CovidPandemicand in the post} pandemic period, the borrower^{could not run the restaurant} effectively, resulting^{in defaultin repaymentfor some time'} The borrower as well as^{the applicants appraised the} respondent of the^{circumstancesfor the default as well as of} their commitment^{to clear the loan.The respondentpromised} not take any coercive^{stepsand advised early regularisationof} account. However,^{respondentcompanyproceededwith} issuance of the^{impugned notice dated25.07.2O?4through the} advocate commissioner^{without any prior intimation' Applicants} came to know of^{securitlsation measureswhen werreserved} with a copy of Caveat^{Application filed beforethe Hon'bleHigh} Court. The applicants^{have not been served with the notices} u/s 13(2) and^{13(4) of the SARFAESIAct as per the prescribed} procedure. Applicants came to^know of^{publicationof the said} notices through Online.

¶20

The respondent bank filed^{reply statement denyingthe} allegations being^false, baseless^{and an invention to delay the} recovery proceedings. The applicants herein are^{the co-} borrowers to the loan availed by M/s.^{Raj Bar} and^Restaurant for business development. It is denied/mlge.?rplicants^have t7//Mns}''

¶21

¶22

sA 727/2024

¶23

ever approached for regularisation of loan account and respondentt assuranCe for I rhe respondent n"r r",,"*J";:::il:::: IJH:il:: r# the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the nrtu. tt,".u ,na". both in issuing the demand the possession no,,." ou,"Joj'fLllilrl';11f ii::. ffi ::: were sent to borrower/applicants by registered post and published in newspapers. reeistration receipts, deriverytl::T:jrJXTJ:".,:: ;:il: notices in newspapers and affixture of possession notice on tne secured asset are filed with compr ia nce or the provisions :: ;"J'[t:Til: X., [:":J . allegation of applicants came ro Lh^,^, ^E -^-.. :. proceedinss onry on receipt ;:" j:", T;;.j:"':r'::::"::; denied. The applicants as well as the borrower committed default in payment of loan requestsanddemands"".",J:T:'I."1:.:H'#,H:L::: recovery of dues. Accordingly, respondent prayed for dismissat of the SA.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent Company. perused the material brought on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent Company submitted that M/s. Raj Bar and Restaurant, the borrower and the applicants being the co-borrowers/mortgagors neglected to regularise the loan account even in the post Covid pandemic. The respondent bank placed on record sufficient material to disprove the contention of violation of provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(a) of the SARFAEST Act and Rutes 8(1) and ,rr/2r,r;2-,r,,", ,n.

/⁽ / -,k,"t^/ L-/

sA L27 12024

demand^{notice and the possession notice' In view of the above} position, learned^{counsel prayed for dismissalof the SA'}

¶30

The^{points for consideration are as follows : -}

¶31

I Whether^{the APPlicant} ^"!: ?"t^a valid sround' for^{interdictingthe} P':o"'ling'^{of resPondent} .bank tt/s 13 and 1l^{of theSARFAESIAct for} taking the^{pltysicat possessionof the} SA schedule ProPertY^!

¶32

To what^relieJ? ii)

¶33

Point No.^(i):

¶34

Applicants^{filed the SA alleging violation of provisions of Section} 13(2) in^{serving the demand notice and Section 13(4) read with} Rules 8(1)^{and 8(2) in serving the possession notice' Whereas'} respondent^{company placed substantive evidencewith respect} to serving^{of demand noticeand possession notice vidematerial} papers at^pages 8^{to 44 annexedto the reply statement'} Though applicants^{took a plea as to respondenthaving} promisednottotakecoercivesteps,theyfailedtoplaceany proof of such an assurance,^{if any, on record' In the light of the} above facts^{and circumstances, I do not find any irregularityor} infirmity on the^{part of the respondent companyin compliance} ofprovisionsoftheSARFAESIActandthesecuritylnterest (Enforcement)Rules,2002inthesecuritisationmeasurestaken against the^{secured asset for recovery of outstandingdues from} the applicants/borrowers,^{Therefore,the applicantsfailed to} make out any valid^{groundfor interdictingin the securitisation} measures initiated u/s 13(4) and^{14 of the SARFAESI Act.} ffry"t