Dismissed

M/s a P Glass Company v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Jul 2025SA/299/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DrTD-I at Hyderabad dismissed an application under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a bank's course of action. The bank sought physical possession via an advocate commissioner under S. 14 after issuing statutory notices. The Tribunal found the proceedings legal, valid, and compliant with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the integrity of Administrator/Commissioner proceedings under S. 14 is upheld.

M/s a P Glass Company versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 17TH DAYOF JULY,2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.299./2c23'

¶5

M/s A.P. Glass Company, Rep. by its Prop.Mr.Md.Rahemath pasha, S/o Lal Mohammed, aged 57 years,

¶6

Occ:business, R/o H.No.9 -3-SB I B I 90, Plot NO.90, MotiDarwaza, M.D. Colony, Hyderabad.

¶7

Mr.Mohd.Khasim, S/o Lal Mohammed, aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.9 -3-58 I B I 90 I l, Plot NO.90, MotiDarwaza, M.D. Colony, Hyderabad

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

And

¶10

Union Bank of India Rep. by its Authorized officer SR Nagar branch, Hyderabad-500 027

¶11

.... Respondent Bank

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶13

Si G.K. Deshpande Si V.SethuMadhaua Rao

¶14

:ORDER:.

¶15

This application is hled by the Appricants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act,2AO2, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physjcal possession of the schedule property through Advocate ].1

¶16

-()' commtssloner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XVIIAddl.CMM, Hyderabad

¶17

*1 r^{il.:: crl:Y.PNgril983/2023} .<sup>and also the possessionnotice I tll,' '"' .- [ dt. 11.05.2_01.0'lSsued by the Bankand to declare the same as illega1 and voidi^: ;r

¶18

s#ll4

¶19

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶20

The Applicants availed loan from the Respondent Bank and thereafter, they could not repay the loan dues. So the loan account was classified as NPA and the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.31.10.2011 and possession notice dt.l6.Og.2ol2 and the same was challenged by the Applicants by filing SA 328117 and this Tribunal set aside the said impugned possessionnotice. Thereafter the Respondent bank alleged to have issued another possession notice dt. 11.05.2018 and basing on the said notice, the bank approached Ld.XVIIAddl.CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner under the Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.1983 I 2023. The advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.XVIIAdd1.CMM, Hyderabad issued notice dt. 11.08.2023to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. Even though in the demand notice, two separate house properties are shown but in the notice dt. 1LO8.2O23 issued by the advocate commissioner, only one property is shown by clubbing the two properties. The impugned possession notice was not served on the Applicants and it was also not afhxed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶21

The Respondent Bank filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicantshaving availed loan from the Respondent Bank, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA and accordingly, Respondent Bank issued demand notice 1lto the Applicants.The Bank also filed the Applicants and the same was decreed on view of the liling of SA 328117 by the Applicants possession notice dt. 16.03.2012 issuedby the Bank, Bank issued fresh possession notice dt. 11.O5.2O18 ion noticewas served on the Applicants and it was schedule property and the said notice was also 2

¶22

published in Nava Telangana and Hans India daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Bank initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before Ld.XVIIAddl.CMM,Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule the property.The advocate commissioner appointed by Ld.XVIIAdd1.CMM, Hyderabad issued notice dt. 11.O8.2O23 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule premises and thus the bank has duly followed the procedure stipulated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.and Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶25

i. whether the Applicants haue establi.sled ang ualid grounds for challenging the steps initiated bg the Respondent Bank for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertA through aduocate commissioner?

¶26

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶27

Polnt^jVo.(i):-

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as

¶29

"-*;4F_HIN.

¶30

:;t$ $^%N the fact that the Applicantsavailed loan and thereafter, committed default in

¶31

j ;ii"',ftffi]",HH:T::f is also no dispute regarding the fact that demand notice dt.31.10.2011 and the

¶32

kffi'#ffi,r::; 3

¶33

SWdiII]P/

¶34

same was^{received by the Applicants' In fact' the said demand notice} was upheld^{by this Tribunal in the earlier SA 328/ 17 filed by the} However, the^{earlier possessionnotice} Applicants herein' dt.l6.o3.2ll2^{issued by the Respondent bank wasset asideby this} Tribunal and^{so, the Respondentbankissuedfresh possession notice} dt. 11.05.2018.

¶35

The specifrc^{contention ofthe Applicantsisthat the impugned} possession notice^{dt. 11.05'2018 was not servedon the Applicantsand} alsonotaffixedontheschedulepropertyandso,thestepsinitiatedby the Respondent^{bank for taking physicalpossessionof the schedule} property through^{advocate commissionerare not valid and liable to be} set aside.

¶36

Percontra,RespondentBankcontendedthattheyhavedulyfollowedthe procedure laid^{downunderthe provisions of SARFAESIAct' 2002 and} Rules made^{thereunderinissuingall the statutory notices to the} Applicants^{and also in takingsteps u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct' 2002 for} taking^{physicalpossession of the scheduleproperty'}

¶37

In order to^{substantiate their contention'the Respondent Bank filed} relevant^{material documents along with the Reply frled by them' As per} the said^{documents, it is clear that the Respondentissuedpossession} notice dt.11'05.2018u/s^{13(a)of the Act and the said notice was sent to} the Applicants^{through Regd'Post and receivedby the Applicants as} evidenced^{by the postal track reports frled by theBank'The said} "-'-::ffi,.SBtbsiqn^{notice was published in English and Telugudailynewspapers} .l/'r#"ii;ttie;\0, the copies^{or paper publication filed bv the Respondent} was also^{affixed on the schedule propertv as depicted} f if "ffi,n. "?ib\t* ltJ,,, -dfief,t i;i1*";.:'^{l,'J'J;, ffi ffi t. i" ]], ;,'l,=} "T'^E:l:l:::; \t^{ii,^} I Rutes, 2Qp;firtaking^{symbolic possessionof the schedule property'} .1r.,,1*,rrnrroe$$S)l' 4 li;|!,iifgp{ !22

¶38

;:-.".---i:..*

¶39

As per the^{provisionsof Section 14 of SARFAESI Act' 2OO2} '^after issuance of^{possessionnotice u/s 13(4)of the SARFAESIAct' 2OO2't}:e} secured creditor^{is at liberty to approach the concernedDistrict} Magistrate or Chief^{Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession} of the secured^{asset. ln the instant case, after issuing demand notice} and possession^{notice to the Applicants, the Respondentapproached} Ld.XVIIAddI.CMM,^{Hyderabadu/s14 of the SARFAESI Act'2OO2for} appointment^{of advocatecommissionerfor taking physical possessionof} the schedule^{property. Ld.XVIIAdd1'CMM,Hyderabad aftergoing through} the record, appointed^{advocate commissionerand the saidadvocate} commissioner^{visited theschedule propertyand issued notice} dt. 1 1.08.2023^{to the Applicants for vacatingthe schedule property'The} Applicants instead^{of vacating the schedule property'filed the present} SA without any^{valid grounds.So, the said notice issued by the advocate} commissioner^{for taking physical possessionof the schedule property is} perfectly legal and^valid.

¶40

t2. So, considering^{all the circumstances,Iam of the opinion that the} proceedings initiated^{by theRespondentbankbefore the} Ld.XVIIAdd1.CMM,^{Hyderabadu/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act' 2OO2 for} taking^{physicalpossessionof the schedule propert5r are quite legaland} valid and strictly^{in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESIAct'} 2OO2 and, Rules^{made thereunderand there are no violations' So I see} no ground warranting^{interferenceof this Tribunal with thesteps} initiated by the^{Bank for takingphysical possessionof the schedule} property u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct,2002' Accordingly'this point is} eniwiirt.q.irlfavour^{of the Respondentbank and against the Applicants'} ",' r#":,^E&";r\ i'P * t r .' .rrr 4fi{ 1 t Jtlt 2o6 -.ll .',lC€. I., ir,. t"""r,, sn zbfl lzozs^{is dismissed as there are no merits'} \i\ir.,tt €+:" oirfuP'

¶41

Consequently,^{the Interlocutory Applications, pendingif any' shall stand} disposed of.^{No order as to costs'}

¶42

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶43

on this tle^1Vh (Dbtoted to the P.S trarlscribed^{bA her,conected,signedand pronounced bAme i4 the opefl} 'frurt daA of Jl1lV,^2025).

¶44

sdl-
(G. GoPI CHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
1 7 JlJt 2ilfi , e:\fi$
Asst.dsgldrat
DR'I'-', ,{YOERABAI

M/s a P Glass Company v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s a P Glass Company v. Union Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

T Parthasaradhi versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

Chethi Rajkumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

Dhansingh Hari Singh versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao