Dismissed

Sri Kashpe Srinivas v. Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT9 Jun 2025SA/179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under the SARFAESI Act challenged the bank's request for an advocate commissioner to evict the applicant. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the bank followed the statutory procedure, including issuing demand and possession notices, and dismissed the challenge as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Application was dismissed as devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Sri Kashpe Srinivas versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDE RABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{g FI} DAY OF JUNE ,2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING O FFICER

¶4

sA.No. 179/2023

¶5

Sri Kashpe Srinivas, S/o KashpeNarsappa, Aged 54 years, Occ:business, R/o 11-1-12O5 ll, Afzal Sagar, Nampally, Hyderabad-SO 00 1

¶6

... Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorized Officer Andhra PradeshMahesh Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., D.No.8-2 -680 I l&2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 034.

¶9

T}:,e Chief Manager, Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd., D.No.8-2-680 I l&,2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sO0 034 .... Respondents Counsel for the Applicant Sri J.Narendra Kumar Counsel for the Respondents Sri M.Sriniuasa Reddy

¶10

:ORDER:-

¶11

1.
This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2OO2, chailenging the rgceedings initiated by the Respondent for
taking physical schedule property u/s 14 of the
SARFAESI ffio2 the orders of Ld.XVIACMM,
Hyderabad, #*o illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

sA 179/23

¶13

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

¶14

The Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, he could not repay some instalments due to loss in the business. on 13.04.2023, the officials of the Respondent bank visited the schedule property and affixed a notice stating that warrant would be executed by the Commissionerwithin fifteen days fromthe date of notice. The said notice was issued in pursuance of the warrant in crl.M.P.No.380/2023 on rhe filc of Ld.xvtAddt.cMM, Hyderabad. Prior to the affixture of the said notice, the Authorized officer of the Bank issueddemand notice which has to be issued by the secured creditor. The Respondent failed to issuc possession notice and the said notice wasnot published in two reading newspapers and the said notice was also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

¶16

The Respondentfiled Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classifierl as NpA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.24.0s.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 calling upon thc Applicant to repay rhe entire outstanding dues within 60 days and the Applicant received the said notice. But the Applicant has not comptied with thesaid demand notice and So, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13.04.2022 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter,the Respondent approached Ld.xvrAddl.cMM, Hyderabad by filing Crl. M.P. and obtained orders for appointment of r taking physical possession of the schedule ocate commissioner visited the schedule affixed a notice on thc schedule premises ol,l?"o0"$ 'frJ8ldf''

¶17

sA 179123

¶18

by demanding the Applicant to vacate the schedule premises. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder foi taking physical posscssi<>n <>f thc schcdulc propcrty and there are no irregularities. Hence there are no mcrits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for challenging the proceeclings initiated bA the Resporudent for taking physical possesslon of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through aduocate commissloner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XW ACMM, Hgderabad?

¶22

ii) To uthat relieJ?

¶23

Point No.(l):-

¶24

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the rty. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the demand notice issued by the Respondent. The hen the Respondent initiated proceedings for ion o[ the schedule property u/s 14 of the

¶26

rough advocate commissioner.

¶27

sA 179123

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing possession notice under s/ 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, the Respondent straightaway approached Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are illegal.

¶29

Pcr cont.ra, thc llcspondcnt contcndcd that the Respondent has strictly followed the proccdure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicant and in taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶30

'l'o substantiate their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.24.O5.2O21rtls lll(2) of rhc SnRFAI,ISI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through ltegd. Post and the same was received by the Applicant as evidcnccd by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent. Admittedly, the Applicant has not complied with the said demand notice. So, the Respondent issued possession Notice dt.13.04 .2022 and the said notice was also sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal receipts filed by the Bank.The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication fiIed by the Respondent and also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copics oI photographs lilcd by the Rcspondent. Thus, the Res uly issued demand notice and possession notice and ule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) AfteQ[$ftuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAEs!4ct, 2oO2 per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI -'^03Jtlllm5 : 1.$ :'; dA *a-S, 4 w-ry

¶31

sA t79123

¶32

Act, 2oo2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Ld.xvl Addl.cMM, Hyderabad and the Ld. Addl.cMM after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner admittedly issued notice dt. 13.04.2O23to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property within fifteen days from the date of said noticeand after receiving the said notice, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶33

1 1. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by thc Rcspondcnt beforc the Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabad, uls 14 of the SARI,'AESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and strictiy in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶34

Point No.(tl):-

¶35

In the result, sA l79l2o2g is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶36

conscquently, thc Intcrlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed o[. No ordcr as to cos1.s.

¶37

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dctated to the P,S transcnbed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced" by me in the open court on this the gh dag ofJune,2025).

¶39

f,::"{
4s5de
d<br>ffi
09;

¶40

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

-i7'?*

¶42

Ass{Reglstrurt

¶43

oR:.-f, H,9 r !?,r. g A !1.

Sri Kashpe Srinivas v. Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kashpe Srinivas v. Andhra Pradesh Mahesh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Gssmr Energy Private Limited versus Union Bank of India

Sousheel versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Mergu Yellappa versus Punjab National Bank

Rajasekhar Kotte versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited