Dismissed

shilpa agarwal v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRT23 Jul 2025SA/147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under s. 77 of the SARFAESI Act challenging possession proceedings, the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of procedural violation regarding demand and possession notices. Concluding that service of notices was proved and no merit existed in the challenge, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed. Interlocutory Applications pending were closed. No order as to costs.

shilpa agarwal versus Indusind Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. !47 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shilpa Agarwal W/o Nitin Kumar Agarwal Aged about 40 years Occ: Business H.No. s-9-122/A/1/31 F. No. 31, Maheshwari Residency Adarsh Naga r, Hydera bad -63.

¶8

.......Applicant.

¶9

And

¶10

Induslnd Bank Ltd. #1-10-72, ld Floor Ashoka lanardhan Chambers Begumpet, Hyderabad- 1 6. Rep by its Authorised Officer. ....Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. K. Kranthi Kumar. Counsel for Respondents : Mr. G. Bhanu Murthy.

¶12

-: QSpl_B:-

¶13

Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 77 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to aS "SARFAESI Act ") assaili''^u"' n g^{n'Zi#)?*obresPo} the^action of- respo nde rnt bank

¶14

sa 211/2023

¶15

in taking the physical possession of the application schedule property pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 09.02.2024 appointed in crl.M.P.No.567 of 2023 on the fite of the learned XXIi Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶16

The case of the applicant as^per the averments of securitisation application, in brief, is that applicant along with other family members availed business loan from the respondent bank by executing requisite loan documents as well as creating mortgage over the SA schedule property. Respondent obtained signatures of the applicant as well as other guarantors on a bunch of blank printed documents. Applicant was regular in repayment except during Covid.19 Pandemic period. Applicant requested time to settle the account. However, respondent proceeded with securitisation proceedings. Respondent bank obtained orders for appointment of Advocate Commlssioner u/s 14 of the Act without complying the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act ln issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) and possession notice u/s 13(4) and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. Applicant approached the respondent bank once again requesting time to settle the account after receipt of the impugned advocate commissioner notice. Applicant and her tenants are living in the schedule property.

¶17

Respondent bank filed counter in IA and a Memo adopting the same as reply statement in the SA. It is submitted that the SA schedule property has been offered as a security for four loans availed by applicant and three other of her family members. Respondent bank has issued demand notice dated 29.12.2022 and possession notice dated 01.02.2023 dnd Jtre same were /,4,\ir^.a ^

¶18

t'//xzlunt'l-//

¶19

sa27r12023

¶20

sent to the^{applicant by registeredpostThe proofof service is} evidenced by^{postalregistrationreceipts/ acknowledgement} cards^placed on^{record along withthe counterfiled in IA Proof} of^{publication,andaffixtureof possessionnotice on the secured} asset are^{plaied on record withthe counterfiled in the IAAs} the applicant^{failed to clear the dues despitenotices'} respondent^{bankobtainedwarrant u/s 14 and the Advocate} Commissioner^{aPpointedtherein issuedthe impugnednotice'} Hence, the^{allegationsand pleastaken in the SA are baseless} and the^{applicant approached this Tribunal with unclean hands} to drag on the^{repayment of outstandingdues'}

¶21

Learned counsel^{for the applicantPrayed that orders maybe} passed based on records.^{Heard learned counsel appearingfor} the respondent.^{Perusedthe writtenargumentsfiled by the} respondent bank^{and the material brought on record'}

¶22

Learned counsel^{appearingfor the respondentbank submitted} that there is no^{illegality or violationof procedure contemplated} in the SARFAES^{Act and the Rules thereunder in the measures} initiated against the^{secured assetsand the same is evidenced} from the material^{papers annexedto the reply statement'Even} the applicant had^{not chosen to advance her argumentsto} prove the allegations over non-compliance of^{the provisions of} the SARFAESI Act and^{the Rules there under, if any,as} contended in the SA.^{Hence,applicantis not entitledto any} relief.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

sA21.1./2023

¶26

Wn1lter the Applicant made out a vatd ground for interdicting the proceedings of respondent^" bank t.ru.tlated.u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act rrututed against the SA schedule properties?

¶27

ii) To what reliefl

¶28

Point No. (iL

¶29

7 ' Appricant cha[enged the action of respondent in obtaining warrant and subsequent notice issued by the Advocate commissioner citing non-compriance of provisions of Sections t3(2) and L3(4) in serving the demand notice and the possession notice. The respondent bank rebutted the said contraventions by pracing on record proof of service of demand notice and possession notice atong with postar registration receipts, postar track reports, paper pubrications and photographs evidencing affixture of possession notice vide materiar papers annexed to the repry statement. These documents are not disputed by the appricant. Thus, the applicant faired to make out any varid ground to interdict the securitisation proceedings against the secured asset initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of its dues. There is no denial of applicant avairing credit facirities from the respondent bank and defaurt in repayment. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality on the part of the respondent bank in obtaining warrant u/s L4 of the SARFAESI Act and subsequent action through Advocate commissioner appointed in crl.M.p. No'567 of 2023 on the file of the learned XXII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, secunderabad. Accordingry, the SA is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of any merit{tryi.g

sA 271/2023

Point No.(ii):

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

¶34

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

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the partiesconcernedand} upload in official^{Web Site.}

¶36

(Dictoted to the Steno, corrected, signed and^prcnounced by me^{in the opencourt on} this the 23'd doy ol luly,2025).

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

shilpa agarwal v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

shilpa agarwal v. Indusind 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kamal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Teja Sri Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus S Jagannath Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Vds Prakasa Rao Palepu

Smt Gulab Saraf versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Maximus Arc Limited versus M/S. Aishwarya Cottons Private Limited