Dismissed

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant v. Central Bank of India

DRT19 Feb 2025SA/15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal dismissed the applicant's application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which challenged the legality of an auction sale notice. The court held that the respondent bank had duly followed the prescribed procedural requirements regarding demand, possession, and sale notices. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant versus Central Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN TItE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD I]ATED THIS THE 1 gTH DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.15/2C23

¶4

M/s Zeenatlr Iled Centre & Cloth Merchant Rep. by its l)rop.ShaikTaher, S/o Sh.rik r\bdul Hafeez, Aged 35 yr..a rs, Occ:business, R/o H.No..2()-4-97 3 I 7 I C I S, KhanabagliChowk, Charminar, Hyderabacl^.500 002

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Central l'3ru r k of India, Rep. by ir.s Authorized officer Begum l3azi r r branch, 14-4-33'7 11, t,akshmi Towers, Opp.Chanci r"a Nursing Home, Hyderabad 500 012.

¶7

Respondent Bank

¶8

CotLr r sel for the Applicant Courtsel Jor the Respondent :

¶9

: Sn D. Raghatrulu Si Momin Mohd.. Raftq

¶10

-:ORDER:

¶11

This application is fited by the Appiicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 200-2, challenging the e Auction Sale Notice d,t.l7.l2.2O22 fixing the dirtc of auction on2O.Ol.2O23 against the schedule property and to dcclarc the same as illegal.

¶12

'i/"i in the application, in brief, are that: ,fP ;^T9'W'2fi6'" loan facilities from the Respondent bank and ii crei i rt.d mortgageih respect of the schedule property. Thereafter due ovid-19 licant could not repay theloan amounts. The '?ab'i1,.' '",,,

¶13

Resprrndent Bank is trying to sel1 the schedule property by fixing the lowr:st reserve price. The Respondent Bank did not serve any demand notice and possession notice on the Applicant. The said poss('ssion notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor aflixcci on the schedule property. Similarly, the Respondent bank failcd to serve Prior to sale notice on the Applicant. The Respondent banl< issued e Auction Saie Notice df .17.l2.2o22and the said notice $1as not served on the Applicant and the same was neither published in trr o daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule propert5r. Hence the SA.

¶14

.1The llespondent Bank filed their Reply Statement denying al1 the advcrse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that in view of the defaurlt committed by the Applicant, the loan account was classified as NPA and a demand notice dt.o1.06.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, .2002 was issued to the Applicant and the Applicant received the said notice and the said notice was also published in two daily ncwsp.lpers. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued Possession Noticc dt. 12.08.2O22bu1 the Applicant managed to return the said notitrc and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. 'l'he rciilier the Respondent Bank issued Pre sale notice dt.O2.12.2O22 u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for giving an oppoltunity to the Applicant to redeem the schedule properties and the said notice was served on the Applicant. Thereafter the Rcsptindent Bank issued Auction sale Notice dt.l7.I2.2O22and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure contemplated uncicr the provisions of. SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made ing the mandatory notices and so, there are no rdingly, theRespondent Bank prayed to dismiss

¶15

: 1g FtB 2tr6

¶16

I-lcar.cl l,d. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for Respondent Rank. I)erused the material brought on record.

¶17

Nolr', r.he points that arise for consideration are,_

¶18

WhetLer the Applicant established anA ualid ground for challenging the Auction Sale Notice dt.12.12.2022 bsued. bg the llespondent Bank in respect of the schedule propertg?

¶19

ii) 'l'o Luhat relieJ?

¶20

P_,oint No.lil:-

¶21

Durrng the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. eounsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective vL',rs, U lt s as stated supra.

¶22

7 . 'l'he r-rndisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan faciliLics from the Respondent Bank and created mortgage in rcsr)c.t of the schedule property andthereafter committed default in r(rpa.'ment of loan dues.

¶23

1'hc slrccific contention of the Appricant is that the Respondent Bank has r.rot issued demand notice, possession notice and sale notice and u,itlrr.rr-rL issuing any such notices and without following the c,r-rt.mplated procedure, the bank is trying to seil the schedule propcrty. Per contra, the Respondent Bank contended that they have fcrllou'cd the prescribed procedure laid down under the provisions of and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the

¶24

:i&,,it Applicant.

¶25

¶26

in order to substantiate their contention, documents along with the Reply fi1ed by

¶27

documents, it is clear that the Respondent 3

¶28

IJi,tn i< issued demand notice dt.O1.06.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SAIIIiAESI Act,2OO2 to the Applicant and the Applicant received the saicl notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the ban]<. In fact, the said notice was also published in two daily nc\'spapers on 07.06.2022 as evidenced by the copies of paper publit:ation hled by the Bank. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued I)osscssion notice dt. 12.O8.2022 to the Applicant and the said notice u'as s(rnt through regd.post to the correct address of the Applicant, so therc is deemed service of possession notice on the Applicant. The saicl notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers on 18.08.2022 as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the ilar-rk. Thereafter, the Respondent bank obtained valuation report fronr thc approved valuer of the bank and the bank issued notice u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2002 on O2.12.O22 for giving an opportunity to the Applir:ant to redeem the secured asset. The said notice was received b-v tlre applicant as evidenced by the copies of postal acknowledgment filc-cl l.l1, the Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued e Auction Salc Notice dt.l7.l2.2o22fixing the auction of the schedule property on 20 .O I .2023 and the said notice was published in Telugu and Dnglish daily newspapers. In the above circumstances, it is clear that 1.tre l{rspondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down undcr tlre provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, made thcrcundcr in issuing demand notice, possession notice and sale nolilc in respect of the schedule property and there are no violations. Accorclingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Ilanli irnd against the Applicant.

¶29

P_o'in!No.llil:-

¶30

t2. Irr tlrc res uritization Application is dismissed as
thcre a \.A

¶31

(lorr:;t.'r-lucntly, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall sLaniJ disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

t4. con rrrrurlicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dbtoted to tLLc l'.5 trutLscibed bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the lqrh dag of Febntrtrt). .l( )-.1{i).

¶34

sd/ - (c. coPr CHANDI RESIDING OFFICER

¶35

1 s rEB 2{p5
hr-**#'$

¶36

,CI, coPY
:q--
offi?fl*'iffi[,'

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant v. Central Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vvflex Pack Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mysha Enterprises

Smt.Konda Venkataramana versus M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

M S Dreams Bakery Foods versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohammad Mustafa