Allowed

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT22 Oct 2025SA/245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitization Application filed by M/s. Lords Hosiery Materials and Garments Group. The court set aside a possession notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the respondent bank failed to serve the demand and possession notices as required by law and failed to follow procedural rules. Since the bank was absen

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 28.03.2025. Interlocutory applications pending stand disposed of.

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

'ORIGITAL.

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22NO DAY OF SEPTEIYBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.com, L.LB, (Hons.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

securitization Apptication No.245 oF 2025

¶5

M/s. Lords Hosiery Materials and Garments Grou nd Floor,9-1-93, Sharadha Bhavan Secunderabad - 500003, Rep by its proprietor Mr.Malcom Anthony Taylor, S/o. Adrain Taylor, Aged 58 Years, Mate, t2-5-t74/A/2 Vijayapuri Colony South Lalaguda Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

DCB Bank Limited., Cello Platina Off No.302, Third Floor FC Road, Near Police Ground opp Lalit l4ahal Hotel, shivaji Nagar Pune - 411005, Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶9

..... .. Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy

Respondent

Ex pafte

-:ORDER:-

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.77 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (,,Act,, hereinafter for short) to set aside the possession notice dated 2g.03.2025 issued under Sec.13(4) against the petition schedule property and without following due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed loan facilities from the respondent bank. The applicant,s wife expired during the COVID Pandemic; the total business was under went severe financial crisis. Respondent bank proceeded to issue SeF.13(4) notice aqainst the Trnt'9.-^u:{'

¶17

2ot2

¶18

sAz4slzo2s

¶19

schedule^{property. Demand notice, possessionnoticewere not served,} the^{possessionnoticewas not affixed and publishedas per Rules. The} respondent bank^{failed to followthe procedures contemplated under secs} 2(o), 13(2), 13(4)^{of the Act and Rules 8(1), 8(6) & B(7) of the Security} Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002.Hence this SA'}

¶20

3.TherespondentbankwassetexparteontB'07'2025ascalled absent and^{no representationdespite serviceof notice'}

¶21

Heard the Learned^{counsel for applicant. Perused the material} brought on^record.

¶22

It is the^{contention of applicant that the respondent bank failed to} serve demand^{notice and possession notice under Sec.13(2)and 13(4)} ofthe Act. As^{stated supra, respondentbank remainedexparfe to the} sA^{proceedings and hence no materialis availableas proof of compliance} of^procedure of^{law. undersuch circumstances, the contentionsof} applicant remain^{unchallenged and accordingly sA deservesto be} allowed.

¶23

In the result,^{the SA is allowed by Setting aside the possession} notice dated 28,03.2025^{in respectof SA scheduleproperty'}

¶24

Consequently, interlocutory^{applicationspending, if any, shall} stand disposed of.^{No orderas to costs. communicatea copy of this} order to the^{parties concernedand upload in the website'}

¶25

(Typed to my dictation by the^PS, corrected,^{signed and pronouncedbymein the opencoufton} this the 22'd day of^{September, 2025).}

¶26

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments v. Dcb Bank Limited

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Camon Frames

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Sree Usha Medical Distributors

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises