Dismissed

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

DRT22 May 2025SA/245/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenged the bank's action in obtaining possession via an advocate commissioner via CMM order, citing non-receipt of possession notice. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the bank had complied with legal procedures and the issue had been decided in a related matter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.245/2023

¶5

1.Syed Sadiq Hussain, S/o Syed Munavar Hussain, Aged 44 years, Occ:business,

¶6

R/o H.No. 1 -6-l 13 I I I A, Adarshnagar,

¶7

Z ahe e r ab ad, M e dak- 50 2 22O .

¶8

Smt.Meharunnisa Begum, W/o Syed Munavar Hussain, Aged 67 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No. 1-6-ll3 I 1 I A, Adarshnagar, Z ahe e r ab ad, M e dak- 5 O 2 2 2 O

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

State bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer SARB, Koti, Hyderabad

¶11

RespondentBank

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶13

; Sn Ch. Ki.shore Sri P.V. Satg anaragana

¶14

:ORDERi

¶15

This application is fi1ed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the action of the RespondentBank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate -ssioner^{pursuant to theorders ofLd.CMM,L.B.Nagar,} d to declare the same as illegal.

¶16

frum

¶17

in the application, in brief, are that:

¶18

1 7^{rr 1v} ,'l^ir,1( ,8" ;r, * r{^{'l rhe} ne^App I housing loan from the RespondentBank against (,+it t.,,, of schedule property. Thereafter, the Applicantscould \tro'r,:;*',.

¶19

not pay some instalments and so, the RespondentBank issued demand notice dt. 16.06.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding to pay the total outstanding dues. Thereafter,the Respondent Bank stated that they have published the possession notice dt.05. ll.2o22 but the Applicants have not received the said possession notice issued by the Bank. Without issuing any such notice u/ s 13(a) of the Act, the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings before the Ld.CMM, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶20

¶21

The Respondent Bank filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that the Applicants having availed loan, committed default in repayment of outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA and a demand notice dt.16.O6.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued and the said notice was served on the Applicants. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.05.1 1.2022 for taking possession of the schedule property and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent bank also liled 0.4.35312022 before this Tribunal and the said OA was allowed on 13.O2.2024. On earlier occasion, the Applicants also filed SA 8Ol2O23 challenging the Auction Sale Notice issued by the Bank and the same is posted for arguments. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank praS,sd to dismiss the SA.

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for dent Bank. Perused the material brought on record.

¶23

ts that arise for consideration are,-

¶24

¶25

1r , / 'titr/ the Applicants established ang ualid grounds for the action of the Respondent Bank for taking physical

¶26

possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. ?

¶27

ii) To what relieJ?

¶28

Polnt No.lll:-

¶29

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

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the factthat theAppricants availed loan facilitiesfrom the Respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent Bank and the Respondent Bank issued demand notice to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said demand notice. There is arso no dispute regartling the fact that the schedule property is mortgaged in favour of the RespondentBank towards security for the loan availed by the Applicants.

¶31

The specific contention of the Appricants is that the Respondent Bank has not issued possession notice to the Applicantsu/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and without issuing anysuch possession notice, the Respondent bank is not entitled toproceed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶32

Per..contra, the Respondent Bank contended that they have followed procedure laid down under the provisions of

¶33

¶34

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bankfiled copy of the order dt.26.O2.2025 passed by this Tribunal in SA 80/2023. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that in the said SA also, the Applicants alleged that theyhave not received possession notice u/ s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 but after elaborate enquiry, the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal. So, in the circumstances, the Applicants are not entitled to re-agitate about the non-receipt of possession notice in the present SA.

¶35

¶36

After issuing possession Notice dt.O5. 11.2022, the Respondent Bank is entitled to approach the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank approached Ld.CMM, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2O02 and the Ld.CMM was pleased to appoint advocate commissioner who issued notice to the Applicants directing them to vacate the schedule property. So the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicants.

¶37

Polnt No.llll)r

¶38

the clrcumstances, I hold that the Applicants have failed to
ground for challenging the steps initiated by the
l'x\ R for taking physical possession of the schedule
!,;t {

:! , pI
ii ;' )7
ii,'t
',1 -:i"
! _.:4 s,'*&',e,s,
'. -;i c,'"-
4
.,r,,

¶39

In the result, the present securitization Application is dismissed there are no merits.

¶40

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

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.S .transcribed" bu he1, _corrected, signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on thb the -22"a day of May, 2025j.

¶43

t

1 'L lrl:i ?-$25
$+r1r
.'"(.6
uls;

¶44

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
,TRU-E frQPY rv
Ll,-9"1<--.r;
,, i:'}?f;it.i3AD.

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sri Dhanvanthari Sean Centre

Ms Hanuman Traders Rep by its Prop Namburi Vijay versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Guduru Sandhya Smitha versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of India versus M/S. Revanth Sai Earth Movers

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India