Allowed

Smt Syed Arshi Naaz v. Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT15 Sept 2025SA/292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a securitisation application challenging a bank's possession notice for failing to justify action via Reply and produce documents showing compliance with SARFAESI Act and Rules, quashing the notice but permitting a fresh legal process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned possession notice dated nil/07/2024 quashed; Respondent at liberty to proceed afresh following SARFAESI Act and Rules.

Smt Syed Arshi Naaz versus Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 1 sTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER,2c.25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

sA.No.292,/2C24

¶5

Smt.Syed Arshi Naaz, W/o Md.Ghaziuddin, Aged 44 years, Occ:house wife, Rl o L7 -3-516 / 14, Shaukhanth-Jung Ki Devi, Yakutpura, Hyderabad-SOO 023. . .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tirumala Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, 1:t floor, Tirumala pride, Main Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad-SO0 036. .. . Respondent Counsel for tte Applicant : Si Mukesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent : M.Sriniuas Reddg

¶8

ORDER

¶9

1' The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Apprication u/s. 17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2Oe2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.nil/ OZ 12024 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶10

The averments made in the app l, 1n-prief,^{are that,the} Applicant 1^---::.. availed term loan facilities t. by creating mortgage against the schedule made regular payments without ent Bank issued impugned goticeld[$[gE)g42s afr after issuance of

¶11

the said demand notice, the Applicant paid substantial amounts into the loan account and without deducting the said amounts and without withdrawing the earlier demand notice dt.02.02.2019 and possession notice dt. 18.O4.2OLa, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.nill07 12024. The Respondent failed to comply with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Securiqr Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶12

.f.

¶13

Though Sri M.Srinivas Reddy filed vakalat for Respondent, not filed counter and reply ever after availing sufficient opportunities and hence their right of liling Reply was forfeited.

¶14

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶15

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶16

il Whether tle Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the impugned possession Notice dt.nit/O7/2024 issued bg the Respondent against the scledule propertg ?

¶17

iil To tuhat relief?

¶18

Polnt No,(l)

¶19

The Applicant filed the present sA challenging the impugned possession Notice dt.nil/ OT / 2O2a. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and by producing necessary material documents to f:g.ve tlrat. l[e. !:pondent has strictly followed the provisions of sARfr'AESI net'ifif,.Eutes framed thereunder in taking possession of #e securea, "".,.'ffiespondent has not evinced any interest in co4testip6 t!p, their right of filing Reply was forfeited. Respondent is not disputing

¶20

i J

¶21

the version of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2O02 in taking symbolic possession of the schedule propert5z, 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.

¶22

Point No.(lll:.

¶23

In the result, SA 292124 is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Possession Notice dt.nil/07 12024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is 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, 2002 and Rules made thereunder.

¶24

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

¶25

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶26

(Dictated to th.e Private secretary, transcibed. by her, corrected., signed and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 1Sth dag of September, 2025).

¶27

fl . ltf {Er-- -'€.'l qEr'.'i
J lssEPr
L i.-.^ 3d,.fl cl stP 2t6 .j:
-.a?:--}J ^€s7/l
/ i-{i';!r':<atJ //
YtF-fr"J\Y

¶28

sd/-
(G. coPrcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
'rRu COPY
s ^iilr, !,voEntsao. tg

Smt Syed Arshi Naaz v. Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Syed Arshi Naaz v. Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank 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

Ms Vamsi Filling Station versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Alankrutha Fashions

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hari Hara Putra Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Nindujarla Ashok Kumar