Allowed

G Kalleda Ganga Reddy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT28 Apr 2025SA/275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application filed by the applicant to set aside a Measure initiated by the respondent for taking physical possession of a schedule property through an Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act during recovery proceedings. The court held that the respondent failed to comply with statutory provisions and frame a reply. It quashed the impugned order and liberty

What did the court decide?

The impugned measures for taking physical possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were quashed. The respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh upon due compliance with the Act and Rules.

G Kalleda Ganga Reddy versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL --. 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED^-|HIS THE. 28I^lT DAY OF APRIL,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.275/2024

¶5

G. Kalleda Ganga Reddy, S/o .KalledaGangaram, Aged 55 years, Occ:business, R/o 6- I 12 I 48, Dharmaram, Dichpaily Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. -503230.

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., Regd. Office at:1lthfloor, North Side, R-Tech park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon(East), Mumbai-4O0063. Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶11

; Sn K. Kranthi Kumar : Exparte

¶12

_o:&Dl^E

¶13

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 action of the l?espondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No.256l2024 on the file of CJM, Nizamabadand to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶14

ts made in the application, in brief, are that, the blished a ltegistered educational society Genius iety and for providing better facilities, the Applicant G.KalledaArundathi as co-borrower/ guarantor,availed

¶15

sA27512024

¶16

variousloan facilities from the Indian School Finance Company P.Ltd in the year 2Ol7 and 2018against the mortgage of schedule property.Due to Covbid-19 pandemic and lock down, the Applicant society sustained loss and could not pay some instalments and so, the loan account of the Applicant has been classified as NPA. Subsequently, vide Deed of Assignment dt.31 .O3.2O22, the Respondent herein has taken over the Indian School Finance Company and the Respondent herein initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFABSI Act,2002.Without serving demand notice and possession notice on the Applicant, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/ s 14 of the SARTIAIISI Act,2OO2 by filing Crl.MP.No.256l2024 for appointment of advocate commissioner before the Ld.CJM, Nizamabad without following due procedure. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondent called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent is set exparte.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whether the Applicarut has established anA ualid grounds for settirug aside the measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possessioru of the SA schedule property through AduocateCommissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No.256/ 2024 on the file of CJM, Nizamabd?

¶21

iil To what relief?

¶22

nt filed the presenl, Sn challenging thc proceedings he Respondent under the SARF'AESI Act,2OO2 against the hedule property. t3ut, the Respondent who invoked the dings against the schedule property, failed to^justily by filing Reply and produce necessary material docltments

¶23

sA27512024

¶24

to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondenthas duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARF'AESI Act and Rules,2OO2 while proceeding against the secured asset for taking physical possession u/s i4 of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has 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.

¶25

Point No.(li):-

¶26

¶27

In the result, 5A27512024 is allowed.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders of CJM, Nizamabad in Crl.M.P.No.256l2024 are hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶29

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

¶30

Communicate a copy of this ordcr to thc parties conccrned.

¶31

Secretary, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg hrs fhe 2Sthdag of Apil, 2025).

¶32

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

*
2 E rpn ?rlzs
<br>a
,%

¶34

HY0ER.r.:3,40.

G Kalleda Ganga Reddy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Kalleda Ganga Reddy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company 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

Thakkallapally Prathyusha versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Chaitanya Transport

State Bank of India versus Smt Buddharaju Kalyani

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Pragathi Industries

Canara Bank versus Mr. Matteda Prathap