Dismissed

Ram Mohan Vadnala v. Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.

DRT7 Apr 2025SA/29/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the respondent's proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of mortgaged property, alleging defective service and publication of possession and demand notices. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined the evidence regarding notice issuance, receipt evidence, newspaper publication, and posting on the property. The court found no violation of pr

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed as devoid of merits. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Ram Mohan Vadnala versus Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TTFT DAY OF APRIL. 2C-25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.29/2(.l^23

¶5

Ram Mohan Vadnala S/o V.Narayana, aged 54 years, Occ:business, H.No .217 I 394, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal-5o6001

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Omkara Assets Reconstruction P.Ltd., Regd. Office No.9, M.P.Nagar, F'irst Street, Kongu Nagar Extn., Tirupur-641607

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶11

Sri K.Suresh :Sn Veera Shiua Kumar

¶12

-.ORDER:-

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders of CJM, I-lanamkondaⁱⁿ Crl.M.P.No.55/ 2022 consequent to the possession notice dt.07.03.2022 and to declare

¶14

rE\ tty The averments made averments made made in pplicat brief, 07 Originally, the Applica the Indusind Bank Ltd. to a tune of RS! 2Ol7 and the said bank assigned the debt to herein. Due to Covid

¶15

The averments made averments made made in

¶16

sA29/2023

¶17

pandemic, the Applicant could not repay the loan instalments and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. But the Applicant has not received any demand notice or possession notice from the Respondent and the impugned possession notice was not published in daily newspapers and it was not affixed on the schedule property. The advocate commissioner along with the officials of the Respondent came to the schedule property and directed the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and handed over the vacate Notice dt.20.01.2o23 along with the possession notice. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

¶20

The Respondent filed counter and adopted the same as Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that the Applicant along with others availed loan from the Induslnd Bank against the mortgage of schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.12.11.2021 to the Applicant and others and the said notice was received by the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice 07.o3.2022 to the Applicant and others and the said notice was received by the Applicant and the said notice was published in Nava Telangana and linancial Express daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the sARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thus the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARF'AESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

%
Counsel for Respondent
hpfi'ffi'"
I
a.,J r
^2:! q

¶22

sA2912023

¶23

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,

¶24

WTrcther the Applicarut established anA ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bU the Resporuderut on the file of CJM, Hanamkonda in Crl.M.P.No.55/2022 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and also the possession notice dt.O7.03.2022 issued by the Respondent?

¶25

ii) To uhat relieft

¶26

Point No.(i):-

¶27

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

¶28

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Indusind Bank and the said bank assigned the debt to the Respondent herein. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant created mortgage against the schedule property and thereaftercommitted default in repayment of outstanding dues.

¶29

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent has not served demand notice on the Applicant and without issuing possession notice, proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda are illegal and liable to be set aside. Per contra, the Respondent contended that the Respondent has duly followed the procedure prescribed un kUrs^{of SARFAESIAct, 2002in} issuing all the relevant 'rt$e ilant and in taking physical possession of the sec sset 4of RFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶30

{

¶31

sA2912023

¶32

To substantiate their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Counter filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.12.17.2)21 u/s I3(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicant and others demanding them to pay the outstanding dues and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the ltespondent. It is not the case of the Applicant thathe submitted any objections to the said demand notice. Thereafter on 07.03.2022, the Respondent issued possession notice to the Applicant and others and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgmentsand the said notice was published in Nava Telangana and Financial Express daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondenthas scrupulosity followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice against the schedule property. As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, the Respondent approached Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda by filing Crl.M.P.No.55/ 2022 and the Ld.CJM appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said commissioner issued notice dt.20.O 1.2023 to the Applicant and others to handover the physical possession of the schedule property within fifteen days from the date of said notice. Challenging the said npjice, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶33

So, consid ces, I am of the opinion that the proceedi Re dent u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical le property through advocate

¶34

W,-t-#

¶35

sA29l2O23

¶36

commissioner are quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶37

Point No.(ii):-

¶38

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed as devoid of merits. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S transcibed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the Vh 6ag of April, 2O25).

¶41

sd/ -

¶42

(c. coPr CHANDI

¶43

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

0 7 f,PR 20ffi

¶45

TRUE COPY

¶46

*+:*ffit9

Ram Mohan Vadnala v. Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mohan Vadnala v. Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Vishnu Sai Enterprises

mr sanjay kumar agarwal versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Kishan Sudeer Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Allianza Distributors

Union Bank of India versus M/S. S S Equipments

Bank of Baroda versus Varalaxmi Seed Processing Plant