Applicants applied to set aside Section 14 orders alleging procedural violations and non-extension of RBI moratorium. The Tribunal held applicants failed to prove moratorium entitlement and found respondent complied with notices and rules. Application dismissed.
SA 172/2024 dismissed; no order as to cost; pending IAs closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT BENGALURU
Dated this 29th day of August, 2025
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.172/2024
W/o.Basavaraj Ghasari, R/o. : Muchandi Village, Belagavi, Karnataka – 590 016.
W/o.Laxman Ghasari, R/o. : Muchandi Village, Belagavi, Karnataka – 590 016. … Applicants. Vs.
Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Registered Office at: Plot No.2364/8, Khampyr Raya Village, Shadikampur, Main Patel Road, New Delhi – 110 008.
Branch Office at: Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Mane Plaza, CTS No.356/A, 356/B, 356/C Ground Floor, Patil Galli Station Road, Belagavi, Karnataka – 590 001.
2
Represented by its Authorised Officer, Mr.Pushpakanth, S/o.Ramanathan, Mane Plaza, CTS No.356/A, 356/B, 356/C Ground Floor, Patil Galli Station Road, Belagavi, Karnataka – 590 001. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Ravikumara. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.J.S.Advocates & Legal Consultants. . …..
O R D E R
3
the Act while classifying the account as NPA and in issuance of demand notice and possession notice. It is further contended that the respondent has not registered their charge/security interest over the schedule property with the Central Registry and the moratorium granted by RBI has not been extended to them. It is also the case of the applicants that without following the procedure the respondent had moved a petition before I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi u/s.14 and obtained the orders therein. According to the applicants the measures leading up to the procurement of section 14 orders is not in accordance with the statute. Along with SA, the applicants had produced the following documents:
4
(a)Copy of the loan application form, sanction letter dt.21.12.2019. (b) Copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deed dt.16.01.2020. (c) Copy of the CERSAI report.
5
moratorium, this Tribunal is of the view that this contention is without any basis.
6
( Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29th day of August, 2025 )
Sd./- (T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, BENGALURU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the measures taken by the respondent leading up to procurement of section 14 orders is legally sustainable?
Whether the RBI moratorium was extended to the applicant and if non-compliance affects the proceedings?
Whether compliance of demand notice service and possession notice rules was met by the respondent?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Ghasari and Sons
Ujjivan Small Finance Bank
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
