Dismissed

Aditya Polymers v. Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT3 Mar 2025SA/156/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as infructuous. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that prior challenged notices could not be re-agitated due to res judicata and the auction notice was rendered ineffective due to a stay order.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with the auction.

Aditya Polymers versus Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2C-25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No. 156/2C23

¶5

1.M/s Aditya Polymers

¶6

Rep. by its Prop.Mrs.KativarapuAnitha, W/o K.Kalidas,

¶7

Plot No.166, Sy.No.l25, Mallapur village, Uppal Mandal, R.R.District.

¶8

Ms.KativarapuAnitha, W/o Kalidas,

¶9

Prop. Of M/s Aditya Polymers, R/o F'lat No.5O4, Sai Towers, Narasimha Nagar Colony,

¶10

Mallapur,Kapra, R.R. District.

¶11

KativarapuKalidas,

¶12

S/ o Ragavaiah, Occ:business,

¶13

R/o Flat No.504, Sai Towers,

¶14

Narasimha Nagar Colony,

¶15

Mallapur,Kapra, R.R. District

¶16

..Applicants

¶17

Versus

¶18

Mahaveer Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by M.D. ICE.O & Authorized officer I-led Office, 15-8-329 I 2, 2"d floor, Samudrala Complex, Feelkhana Hyderabad.

¶19

..Respondent

¶20

M/ s R.S. Associafes

¶21

ndent Bank Sri V.Sethumadhaua Rao
A"
ii": o3 uAH2s6 -:ORDER:^
1: :.r'..,idi. -i j,
'.,1. r'j' trir
'i:.. t.Jt^'9.-
I .,;,.i-;Tfi,ib,, filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI
*,{)2
hllenging the Dernand notice dt.07.03.2019, Possession
notice dt.27.06.2019 and Sale Notice dt.12.o3.2023 issued by the

¶22

¶23

Respondent bank against the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶24

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶25

The Applicant No.2 is proprietor of the Applicant No.1 company and Applicants No.1&2 availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank for which Applicant No.3 stood as guarantor. Applicants No.1&2 committed default in repayment of loan outstanding dues, so the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.07.03.201,9 and thereafter issued possession notice dt.27.06.2019 to the Applicants. Challenging the said notices, the Applicants filed SA 228l2olg before this Tribunal but the same was dismissed for default on 13.02.2023. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued Pre-Sale notice u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule s, 2OO2 by giving an opportunity to the Applicants to redeem the schedule property. The Respondent Bank also issued Sale notice dt. 12.O3.2o23for conducting auction of , the schedule property and the reserve price fixed by the Bank against the schedule property is lower to the real value of the property.Hence the SA.

¶26

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicants No.1&2 having availed loan from the Respondent bank, committed default in repayment of loan instalments. so the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.17.03.20l9and possession notice dt.27 .06:2019and challenging the said notices, the Applicant 22812019 and the said SA was dismissed. So, the finding in 9operates as Res-judicata. Thereafter the rru r\ESPUrlLIctlL Respondent bankt {@m'^e if : i^/" B? ffi;r,;&W;;;;";;";;";;;;. obtain approved varuer and nxed reserve r,:. 0 3 ltARE4fA.^{tttlh"o."tof the schedule property and issued Notice of} ,i r"["3.OTdAr. u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rutes, 2oo2 ' -{ '. .o"p.g2..Q? -g;^'::,.'..'/ r2O23 for giving an opportunity to thc Applicants to redeem t .,;.1yg";f'-f,r"1.'i,;i' ; - ' '," t-.f,i^'.'---. "

¶27

¶28

the schedule property and the said noticc was served on the Applicants.As theApplicants failed to redeem the schedule property, the Respondent Bank issued E Auction sale Notice dt.12.03.2023 by fixing the auction of the schedule property on 26.04.2023 and the said notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. But in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal, the proposed auction was not conducted by the Bank and So, the SA becomes infructuous.Accordingly, lstRespondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶29

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.sand Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank and also perused the material brought on record.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶31

Whether the Applicantsestablished anA ualid grounds fo, challenging theDemqnd notice dt.07.03.20 1 9, Possession notice dt.27.06.2o19 and Auction sale noticedt.12.03.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property?

¶32

iil To uthat relieft

¶33

Potnt No.(i):-

¶34

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated :upra.

¶35

@N(ispute,.1.o]"1thefact.that'theApplicantsi""],:o ,& ;h. Resoondent Bank against the mortsase or schedule i - p?op '{"Y'ffi'.,o ".;.::,;t,J;1il ;;;"-;L;" ;ff;. ii,; 0 3 ,Ug[,ffig tnfl,rlct that the Respondent Bank after classifying the toan t i ..le i''I a- - i!,$' x, account .ast'NPA, issued demand notice dt.07.03.2019 to the tli-%hrnoorr*,<i;' jr" 13(2) or the SARFAESI sARFAESI Ac t, t, 2oo2oo 2. Admittedlv ,. the s#ffi5sl.izs

¶36

¶37

applicants have not complied with thc said demand notice and they have not raised any objections to the said notice. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.27.06.2019 to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said notice. In fact, the Applicants also filed copies of the said demand notice and possession notice along with the SA. It is pertinent to note that challenging the said demand notice and possession notice, the Applicants filed SA 22812019 and the said SA was dismissed on 13.02.2023. So, now the Applicants cannot re-agitate about the validity or otherwise of the said demand notice and possession notice issued by the Bank in the present SA.

¶38

As per the material documents filed by the Respondent Bank, it is clear that before fixing auction, the Bank has issued Pre Sale Notice dt.22.O2.2023 u/s 8(6) of Security Intcrcst (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 by giving an opportunity to the Applicants to redeem the schedule property within 30 days and the said notice was receivedby the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. As the Applicants have not taken any steps for redemption of the schedule property, the Respondent Bank issued Auction Sale Notice dt.12.03.2023 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 26.04.2023 and the said sale notice was published in Vartha and Indian Express daily newspapersas evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent Bank. The said sale notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Thus, the Respondent bank has -ously^{followed the procedure laid down under the provisions} {W ::':,::^^#':"^J;::'T[::1,: T. T;::il;: o3 t6irre eppffip\ts.HAR206'^*l

¶39

r note that in pursuance of the e Auction Sale Notice the proposed auction in respect of the schedule not materiahzcd in view of the stay granted by this

¶40

¶41

Tribunal. So the relief claimed by the Applicants in the present sA becomes infructuous. So far as demand notice and possession notice are concerned, at this stage, the Applicants cannot re-agitate about the validity or otherwise of the said notices in view of the dismissal of the earlier SA 228119 filed by them.

¶42

So, considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Applicants are not entitled to claim any relief claimed in the SA and the SA becomes infructuous.

¶43

Point No.(til:-

¶44

1 1. In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. However, the Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed for conducting auction of the schedule property in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶45

consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corected, signed and. pronounced btt me irL the open court on this the 3d daA of March, 2025).

¶48

sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

0 J ilAB Zoz.r TRUE^GOPY

¶50

,AfMLI,Y

Aditya Polymers v. Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Polymers v. Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

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

Pati Satya Narayana Reddy versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Shaik Abdul Aleem versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gudilla Babu versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Narra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Vangaveeti Nagender versus State Bank of India