Allowed

Smt.Konda Venkataramana v. M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

DRT19 Feb 2025SA/288/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Securitisation Application challenging the respondent's physical possession of secured property failed to justify the action due to lack of evidence regarding compliance with SARFAESI Act and Rules. Application allowed and impugned measures quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the secured asset are quashed. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh.

Smt.Konda Venkataramana versus M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN-fHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IfAl t:DTHISTHE 1grH DAYOFFEBRUARY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.28a/2023

¶5

Smt. Koncla Ve n kataramana, W/o Hi,risl-r, agc.d 32 years, Occ:housc wife, R/o H.No. 15- 1 1, Laxmipum m village, Kodad Mandal, TammaralJandapalem, Suryapet Dist.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Tersus

¶8

M/s ApLus Value }{ousing Finance India Ltd., Rep. b1, its Authorized officer, 8-B, Doshi Tor.r,r: rs, 205, Poonmalk t: High l{oad, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counse L lbr the Applicant ResponcLertt

¶11

i Sri T. Sridhar Reddy : Exparte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

'1'he Appli<:ant frled the present Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of t lrc Se crrritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Iirrlrrrcenrcnt of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) chaiLenging the action of the Respondent for taking physical pt.rsscssion r"lf the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner prrrsuallt in Crl.M.P.N o.l12023 on the file of Principal petand to set aside the same as illegal

¶14

1'h ,".J"fl,JEflllP5 i., --trre apptication, in brief, are that, the

¶15

Ap from the Respondent and paying the

¶16

sA 288/2023

¶17

instirlments regularly. All of a sudden, some agents of the Rcsl,ondr:nt visited the schedule property on L4.og.2023 and served a c()p-' of Notice dt.nil issued by the Advocate commissioner to deliver the physical possession of the schedule propert5r,as per the orders in crl.M.P.No.ll2023 on the file of principal sr.civil Judge cum cJM, Sur,1'apet.The Respondentfailed to issue demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and also failed to follow Rule 8i1)tu(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶18

1'he Respondent called absent and there was no representation even ai'ter giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent is set cxptrrte.

¶19

FIeard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Now thr: points [hat arise for consideration is

¶21

i) whether the Applicant has estabtished any ualid ground"s for settinq aside the measures initiated bg the Respondent for taking physical possessron of the sA schedule property through Aduocatecommissioner pursuant to the ord.ers in crl.M.P.No.1/ 2023 on the file of principal sr.ciuil Judge c,Ltm cJM, SurLtapet?

¶22

ii) ll'o what relief?

¶23

Po1t&*No.li)

¶24

the present SA challenging the proceedings the dent under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the uqL, Lrrv r\uDP\JrrLIsrrL wlIU llrvulleu LnL ir -- I .S^f FR 7-11N^---- iti"t""r' iit4 snRtr lrAESr pilbteedip,qs against the schedule property, failed to justify and produce necessary material documents

¶25

sA 288/2023

¶26

to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SAIIFAESI 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 fiie thcir Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations o{'the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that t.Ire Respondenthas duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules,2oo2 while proceeding against the secured assct for raking physical possession :uls 14 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.

¶27

Epitt!_&.lQ:-

¶28

Irr tlie result, SA 28812023 is ailowed.

¶29

A<:c,rding[1,, the impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for tarking physical possession of the secured asset under Section L4 of the SARITAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders of Principal Sr.Civil .Jirdge cum cJM, Suryapetin crl.M.p.No.tl2023 are hereby quashed. I {owever, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the sA sched ulc property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules thereunder.

¶30

'l'he Interkrcutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No ctrder as to costs.

¶31

Con
concerned.
-a copy of thil order to the parties
,, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg
1 gtttdaA of February, 202 5).
Tquh (^\ coBY \1,/ ., (c. coprcHANDtsd/-
< . $\PRESIDING oFFIcER
Nt Ro@rer
D"qr-I. HvnERA8,6il'.
3

Smt.Konda Venkataramana v. M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Konda Venkataramana v. M/s.Aptus Value Housing Finance India 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

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Radha Krishna Farms

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vvflex Pack Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mysha Enterprises

M S Zeenath Bed Centre and Cloth Merchant versus Central Bank of India

M S Dreams Bakery Foods versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohammad Mustafa