Dismissed

Akhund Yaseen Subahani v. Axis Bank

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by a borrower to set aside the bank's physical possession of mortgaged properties. The court held the bank followed statutory notice procedures and there was no infraction of the Security Interest Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed inter alia the pending interlocutory applications were allowed stand closed.

Akhund Yaseen Subahani versus Axis Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE 29TH^{DAY OF JULY,2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS'), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization^{Application No.285 OF 2023}

¶4

Ivlr. Akh und Yaseen^Subhani S/o Akhund Khadar^lvloddin Aged about 36 Years,^male Occ:Business,^R/o11-198 Roza lvlaseed,^TadiPatri Ananthapu r, Andhra^{Pradesh515411}

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Axi Bank Limited Rep by its authorized^officer Situated at^{Door No.43-9- 141} Sri Gayatri^{Towers, 4th Floor} Sri Kanya^{Main Road, Dondaparthy} Vishakhapatna^{m, Andhra Pradesh530016}

¶8

....Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for^the Applicant^{: Mr' D Raghavulu} Counsel for Respondent^{: Mr' N' Sudarshan}

¶10

-:g-B.D-EB:-

¶11

The APPlicant^filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} EnforcementofsecuritylnterestAct,2002(hereinafterreferredtoas .'the Act") to set aside all the proceedings^{of the respondentincluding} taking^{physical possession the application scheduleproperties} pursuant to advocate^{commissionernotice 'nil' dated in CrI MP} No.t87l2O2Z^{on the file of learnedChief Judicial MagistrateCum} Principal^{AssistantSessions ludge'Ananthapuram and pursuantto} possession^{notice dated !o'r2'2021' /(X''P}

¶12

PaEe 2 of 4

¶13

SA No,28sl2023

¶14

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed OD facility of Rs.48.40 lakhs for business purpose against mortgage of application schedule properties. Due to Covid-19 pandemic and non_ realization of Government bills he suffered business losses. His wife who was co-applicant also committed suicide due to financial problems. Without considering the request to regularize account, respondent bank illegally declared the account as NpA against RBI guidelines. Without serving demand notice, possession notice and without affixing and publishing the possession notice, the respondent bank resorted for taking physical possession of the properties. Value of the properties is more than Rs.2 crores whereas debt even as per impugned notices is about Rs.61.S lakhs. Respondent bank also failed to issue notices on LRs of the deceased co_applicant. Hence this SA to set aside all the measures of the respondent bank.

¶15

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that due to various defaults the account became NpA as per RBI norms. The demand notice dated 24'08'2027 was served on appricant and another whereas returned as'unclaimed, in respect of 3.d borrower. The demand notice was also published. The possession notice dated Og.l2.2O2l was returned as 'unclaimed' and it was published in ,prajasakthi, and .Business standard' Terugu and Engrish newspapers on 11.12.2021 besides affixture on secured assets by duly fo owing Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of 2002. Thereafter respondent bank approached learned CJM by filing Crl Mp No.1922022 wherein advocate commissioner was appointed to take the physical possessior I of the secured assets' The appricant never informed about death received by herserr whereas ,":lrl; ;j:,.jj..,::t:l ::ffi];; The respondent bank has not violated the proce{s laid down under ' 7 \h^.!'- - ^.,r-'-r

¶16

Page 3 of4

¶17

SA No'285/2023

¶18

the Act or^{the Rules framed thereunder'Hence SA is llable to be} dismissed.

¶19

4,Representativeoflearnedcounselfortheapplicantsreported orders may^{be passed basedon record'Learned counsel for the} respondent^{bank reported no oral arguments however filed written} arguments.^{Perused the samealong with the material brought on} record.

¶20

Now, the^{points for considerationare as follows : -} i) Whether^{the applicantmade out anY validground, to} '' iriin ,nv or ine miis'res initiated bY the respondent igainst^{the SA schedule ProPertY?}

¶21

ii) To what^relief?

¶22

Point No.(i):

¶23

The^{applicantsadmit of availing loan facility from the} respondent^{bank and default in repayment due to business losses on} account of^{Covid-19pandemlcand other reasons' Hencethe} categorization^{of the account as NPA cannot be treated as illegal'} Creation of^{mortgage in respect of application scheduleproperties is} not in dispute.^{The appllcant received the demandnotice along with} others^{videcopies of postal acknowledgementcards bearing their} signatures.Theapplicantstatedthathiswife/co-applicantdiedand legal^{heirs have not been served any notice Having stated so' the} applicant^{l\as not bonafidelysubmitted the date of her deathand} details of^{her legal heirs to whomnotices to be served The co-} applicant^{herself receivedthe demand notice under signatureThe} possession notice^{was returnedunservedwith postal remarksas} 'unclaimed'.^{The apPlicantought to have Informedthe respondent} bank about^{the death of his wife' Wittrout informiffie-,,secf,red}

¶24

creditor^{cannotknowthe details of LRs ol deceased'} U ""$'\t\

¶25

Page 4 of4

¶26

sA No.28sl2023

¶27

The respondent bank published the possession notice and got affixed on secured assets and hence I find no infraction of Secs.13(2), B@) of the Rutes 8(1) and B(2) of the Rules of 2002. The respondent bank as secured creditor is entitled under Sec.14 of the Act to take action for taking physical possession of the secured assets I find no illegality in the action.

¶28

B. In view of the above observations, I find that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Point No.(ii):

¶30

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

ConseguenUy, the Interlocutory Applications pendi ng, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. 11. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and

¶32

upload in the official website.

¶33

,{l:":r:fll:;r;:;:;rr1;,the ps, corrected, sisned ond pronounced by me in the open court on this

¶34

!9HWAR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICEIi

Akhund Yaseen Subahani v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhund Yaseen Subahani v. Axis Bank

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

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited