Allowed

N v. Subba Rao v State Bank of India

DRT6 Mar 2025SA/165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a securitisation application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act quashing a possession notice. The court ruled that the Respondent Bank failed to justify the proceedings by filing a reply or producing documents proving compliance with the Act and Rules, rendering the measure liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Possession Notice dated 02.03.2024 was quashed, and the Bank is at liberty to recover dues by duly following SARFAESI Act provisions.

N v Subba Rao versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6IH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

N.V.Subba Rao, S/o Sri RAnga Rao, Aged 41 years, R/ o H.No .2- 12, Janpahad(V), Nereducherla(M) Suryapet ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank of India, Janpahad branch, Suryapet, Rep. by its Authorized officer ... Respondent

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. G. Poornima Rao Respondent : Exparte

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.02.O3.2024 issued by the Respondentbank against the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶10

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant n from the Respondent Bank but due to fin pplicant could not pay some loan instalmens. frvhile,^{the RespondentBank proceeded} dt.04. 12.2023. Thereafter the

¶11

Bank issued impugned possession notice dt.02.03. 2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAEST Act,2oo2 for taking possession of the schedule property. The said possession notice was not served on the Applicant and also not published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property as prescribed under Rule g(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶12

¶13

No representation for the Respondent Bank and set exparte.

¶14

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶16

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶17

whether the Appricanthas estabrished. ana uarid. ground.s for setting aside the posse.ssron Notice dt.02.0s.2024 issued. bg the Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶18

il To what retieft

¶19

Point No.(i)

¶20

The Applicant filed the present sA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 13(4) of the Act 'ARFAE'T for taking symbolic possession of the apprication schedure property. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and produce necessary materiar documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The RespondentBank has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter an^ rail-r +^ r:1^ -, even after giving "affis s and failed to file their Reply and material docum{t6-t"tBffi;i?is[ttrsations or the Applicant. rn the absence of any it#teriar .r .ffi.". ,"*Ei+- r rhar the Lrrv r\eDy/rrLrEllL Respondent BankDanK has dulv compflcd uth FHm Tmnda&diR.oui"iors of SARFAEST Act 't, ':t j"

¶21

and Rules, 2OO2 while^{proceedingagainst the secured assetfor} taking possession u/s 13(a) of the Act, I^hold that^{the Applicanthas} made a case for quashing the measures^{initiated by the Respondent} against the SA schedule property under the^{provisions of the} SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as^{such,the SA is liable to} be allowed.

¶22

Point No.(til:-

¶23

In the result, SA 165/2024 is allowed.

¶24

Accordingly, the impugned Possession^{Noticedt.02.03.2024issued by} the Respondent bank against the^{schedule propertyis} hereby quashed. However, the Respondent Bank is^{at liberty to proceed} afresh against the SA schedule^{property to recovertheir dues by duly} following the provisions of SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 and Rules} thereunder.

¶25

The Interlocutory Applications,^{pending if any, shall standdisposedof.} No order as to costs.

¶26

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶27

(Dictated to the Piuate Secretarg, trarscibed bg her, corrected,^{signed andpronounced bg me in the} open court on this the 6tn day of^{March,-po25).}

¶28

0 6 ilAH 2$25

¶29

sdl _
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
TBUF coP"Y
0 s 6,1ff-'
Asst.feglStrar
ng'-.t HvntrPAFr,{).

N v. Subba Rao v State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N v. Subba Rao v State 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

Similar cases

Pajjuri Lasyapriya versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Varalaxmi Saw Mill

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Medical and General Stores

Ms Sona Collections Rep Neeraja versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sapavat Deepa