Dismissed

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Agencies and another v. Bank of India

DRT4 Jul 2025SA/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected a Securitisation Application challenging the respondent bank's physical possession of mortgaged property. The court held the application was dismissed because the primary grievance regarding earlier notices could not be raised for the first time belatedly and the bank had already lawfully taken possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent not to take physical possession was denied as the asset was already in possession; petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Agencies and another versus Bank of India — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-[ AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLIATION NO. L56 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Agencies Proprietor: Mr. Nara Mallikarjuna Plot No. 57, Door No.5/58 Sri Lakshmi Colony, Papampeta

¶7

Ananta pur.

¶8

Mr. Nara Naveen Kumar S/o Mr. Nara Mallikarjuna Plot No. 57, Door No.5/58 Sri Lakshmi Colony, PapamPeta Anantapur.

¶9

.......APPlicants'

¶10

And

¶11

The Authorised Officer Bank of India Anantapur Branch 12-313, Balaji Towers Subash Road Anantapur-515 001.

¶12

... .Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants :^{Mr. P. Venkateswarlu.} Rao. counsetror Respondent , ,, bw;ara

¶14

sA Ls612024

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s L7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act ") assailing the action of respondent bank to take the physical possession of the application schedule property on 23.03.2024 through Advocate Commissioner appointed by the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2L of 2024.

¶17

The averments of the SA, in brief are, that applicant availed housing loan and cash credit facility in 2011 and 2Ol4 respectively. These loans are secured by mortgaging the SA schedule property belonging to the Proprietor of 1st applicant and father of 2nd applicant. The secured asset was under tenancy. Applicants could not repay the loans in spite of best efforts, Respondent bank clubbed house loan account in the recovery proceedings despite there being no irregularity in its payment. Applicants proposal to clear the loan amount in instalments has been rejected by the respondent. Respondent has not issued separate notice to the tenants of the schedule property. The interest claimed for Home Loan @11.20o/o dnd 13.60% p.a. for cash credit limits are exorbitant and against the law. Applicants challenged the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in Crl.M.p.No.47O/20L7 pursuant to possession notice dated lS.O9.2Ol7 by filing SA.1449 of 2017 and deposited Rs.23,00,000/- in compliance of a conditional interim order passed therein. The respondent sare notice bank put the SA scheciule properry fo, n#y: U>(*D

¶18

sA 156/2024

¶19

dated 09.11.20L7 for recovery of Rs.57,70,000/- while the value property is more than Rs.1,35,00,000/-.

¶20

Respondent bank filed the reply statement. Respondent bank stated in the reply statement that applicants earlier filed SA.1449 of 20t7 challenging the sale notice dated 09.11.2017 issued against the secured asset and the same ended in dismissal for default by an order of this Tribunal dated 05.06.2023. The order dated 05.06.2023 attained finality. Applicants have challenged the^possession notice issued u/s 13(4) by filing W.P. No. 33858 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court and the same ended in dismissal on 23.10.2017. In fact, though applicants filed sA.L449 of 2ot7 challenging the Advocate Commissioner notice but not the^possession notice. The present SA.156 of 2024 is filed against the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in Crl.M.P.21 of 2024 seeking a direction not to take^{physical possession} of the SA schedule property. Applicants obtained a conditional interim conditional order dated 27.03.2024 in IA.958 of 2024 in the present SA, but failed to comply the conditional order. The interim order dated 27.03.2024^passed in the 14.958/2024, gives liberty to respondent bank to proceed further in the event of failure of compliance of conditions by the applicants.^{As the} applicants failed compllance as^per orders in 1A.958/2024, respondent bank proceeded with e-auction sale notice dated 23.10.2024 fixing the date of auction as 25.11.2024. In the meanwhile, upon expiry of earlier warrant dated 13.03.2024, respondent obtained a fresh Warrant on 30.08.2024 and took the physical possession of the property on 21.09,2024 by any recordins. the inventory. Applicants ^""hw::d

¶21

sA t56/2024

¶22

amendment petition against the fresh warrant. The proprietor of 1't applicant and Mortgagor of SA schedule property expired on 08.05.2020, leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters. The present SA is not filed by the legal heirs of the deceased mortgagor, hence the SA is not maintainable. Respondent bank obtained decree in OA.515 ot 2020 filed against the applicants on L6.10,2024.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.^perused the written arguments filed by the respondent bank and the material brought on record.

¶24

While reiterating the pleadings advanced in the Securitisation Application, learned counsel for the applicants prayed for allowing the SA in the interest of justice.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the SA is not maintainable as the applicants have only challenged the action pursuant to earlier Warrant dated L3.03.2024 but not the fresh Warrant dated 30.08.2024.

¶26

Thereafter, respondent bank has taken the physical possession of the property on 21.09.2024. As the applicants have not complied with the conditional order in IA.958 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024, respondent proceeded with issuing sale notice dated 23.10.2024 fixing the date of auction as 25.tL.2024. In fact, OA.515 of 2020 filed by the respondent bank was also decreed on merits vide order dated 16.10.2024. As such there is no illegality or infirmity in the measures taken by the respondent bank against the secured asset for recoverv of /M-"t

¶27

a\r

¶28

sA ts6/2024

¶29

outstanding dues. In view of the above developments, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶30

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶31

i) Il/hether the Applicants made out u valid ground for interdicting the proceedings of respondent bank u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act initiated against lhe SA schedule properties?

¶32

ii) To u,hat relief?

¶33

Point No.^(i):

¶34

B. The SA is filed with the sole prayer seeking direction to the respondent not to take physical possession of the SA schedule property on 23.03.2024 through Advocate Commissioner appointed in Crl. M.P. N. 21 of 2024 and award costs. The grounds urged in the SA are sustainability of sale notice dated 09.Lt.20L7, violation of procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, clubbing home loan account with cash credit loan account, exorbitant interest, putting the secured asset for recovery of Rs.57,70,000/- while the property value being Rs.1,30,00,000/- and failure in serving separate notice to the tenants.

¶35

A perusal of material placed on record reveals that the securitisation proceedings in the matter initiated as back as 06.07.20L7 by a demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by possession notice u/s 13(a) dated 15.09.2017. Respondent bank filed proof of service of the said notices as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Applicants have not disputed these material papers. In fact, O%*

¶36

sA L5612024

¶37

applicants admitted default^{in repayment of loan amountsas} per agreed terms. Applicants admitted of receiving^Section 13(4) notice vide SA averments^{in para} 5(f).^{It is also an} admitted fact that consequent to^{Advocate Commissionernotice} in Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2017, applicants^{filed SA.1449of 2017} challenging the action of^{respondent bank for taking physical} possession of the SA schedule property but not the^possessin notice. The present SA is against the undated^Advocate Commissioner notice intimating date of^{taking of physical} possession of the subject property being 23.03.2024.^As regards the^grievances raised in the^{present SA, the samedo} not deserve acceptance as the applicants^{have not taken up the} same in the earlier SA.l449 of^{2017and thus, the said issues} cannot agitated at this belated stage.

¶38

In so far as the prayer relating to the impugned action^of respondent bank, it is stated by the respondent bank that^the physical possession of the subject property has already been taken on 21.09.2024 pursuant to a fresh Warrant dated 30.08.2024. It is evident that the applicants have not taken any steps to challenge the Warrant or the^{physicalpossession} taken by the respondent. It is also evident that the applicants have not complied the conditional order in IA.95B of 2024 dated 27 .03.2024 in depositing Rs. 16,00,000/-.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid observations, the very purpose of filing the present SA having been defeated in view of respondent bank taking the physical possession of the SA schedule property pursuant to a fresh Warrant dated 30.08.2024, and accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismiss./7Y* ()/^tury-

¶40

sA 756/2024

¶41

Point No.(ii):

¶42