Dismissed

.Mr.Syed Hajee Hussain and Another v. State Bank of India

DRT2 Jul 2025SA/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by borrowers challenging State Bank of India’s physical possession of mortgaged property. The Court held that the bank’s steps were legal under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the applicants failed to establish valid grounds for challenge.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed as there are no merits. Interlocutory Applications pending if any shall stand disposed of.

.Mr.Syed Hajee Hussain and Another versus State Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED^-T'HIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY ,2C.25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.3C5/2C23

¶5

I . Mr. SyedHajee Hussain, S/o Syed Munawar Hussain, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o Plot No.67, Adarshnagar, Zaheer abad, Medak- SO222O . .

¶6

Smt. Naseema Begum, W/o Syed Hajee Hussain, Aged 46years, Occ:house wife R/o Plot No.67, Adarshnagar, Zahe er abad, M edak- SO 2220

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

State bank of India, Rep, by its Authorized Officer SARB, Koti, Hyderabad

¶10

RespondentBank

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants : Sn K.Suresh

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent : Sn P.V. SatganaraAana

¶13

.:ORDER:.

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the action of the RespondentBank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate cr>mmissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.cMM, R.R.District in crl.M.P.No)a812023 and to declare the same as illegal.

¶15

¶16

the application, in brief, are that:

¶17

l'he Applicants availed housing loan from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage of schedule property. Thereafter, the Applicants could not pay some instalments andso, the RespondentBank declared the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 but the said notice was not served on the Applicants. The impugned possession notice was also not served on the Applicants and the said notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. without issuing any such notice u/s 13(4) of the Act, the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings before the Ld.cMM, R.R. District for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property.The said advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.cMM is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed their Reptydenying all the adverse allegations made. in the SA. It is contended that the Applicants having availed housing loan, committed default in repayment of outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA and a demand notice dt.ol .06.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 was issued and the said notice was served on the Applicants. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.1 1 .o8.2022 for taking possession of the schedule property and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank approached Ld.cMM, R.R.District for appointment of advocate commissioner and after perusing the record, Ld.CMM appointed the advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner issued p[: Applicants for vacating the schedule property and so, the

¶19

,1':I.'andvalid.Accordingly,RespondentBank * JUL 2025 h,

¶20

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

¶21

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶22

whether the Applicants established" ana uctlicl ground"s -fo, challenging the action of the Respond"ent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule propertg u/ s 14 of tIrc SARFAESI Act, 2002 pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, R.R.Distict ?

¶23

ii) To uhat relieft

¶24

Point No.(il:-

¶25

I)r-rring thc course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank reiterated their respective versions.

¶26

There is no dispute regarding the factthat theApplicants availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent Bank. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the schedule property is mortgaged in favour of the Respondent Bank towards security for the loan availed bv the Applicants.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent Bank has not issued demand notice and possession notice to the nd without issuing any such notices, the Respondent toproceed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for .,{'i#;A ion of the schedule property. li* ii ?p_ rrt^{ftfl.dflt.dfltheR} , ndent Bank contended that they have followed ure laid down under the provisions of 3 W;#

¶28

SARI.-AESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicants and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶29

¶30

¶31

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Respondent bank filed copy of the order dt.26.o2.2o2s passed by this Tribunal in SA 77 12023. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that the said sA is filed by the Applicants challenging the possession notice dt.1 1 .o8.2o22 and sale notice dt.31 .ot.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank against the schedule property. After elaborate enquiry, the said sA was dismissed by this Tribunal. so, when the earlier SA filed by the Applicants challenging the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank including the possession notice which is in challenge in the present SA is dismissed on merits, the Applicants are not entitled to re-agitate the non-receipt of demand notice and possession notice in the present SA as per the principles of Resjudicata.

¶32

After issuing Possession Notice dt.1l.og.2022, the Respondent Bank is entitlcd to approach the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank approached Ld.cMM, R.R. District for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the Ld.cMM was pleased to appoint advocate commissioner who issued notice to the Applicants directing them to vacate the schedule property. So the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physi qq of the schedule prope rty uls 14 of the SARFAESI |V^{legal and valid.Accordingly,this pointis} t., ;ff:."ffiffi$Ej3e the Respondent Bank and against the ',y'"uT'rri^,r,

¶33

¶34

Point No.(ii):-

¶35

t2. So, in the circumstances, I hold that the Applicagrts have failed to establish any ground for chalrenging the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶36

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶37

consequent.ly, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.s.tra_nscribed bg ry"!,_corrected", signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 2"a d.ag of Julg, 2O2S).

¶40

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI RESIDING OFFICER

¶41

ffi&
.-E
:*
lH 02JUt2W *
W--',#

¶42

(l- ARUBCOPYt,lffi;/
es6{. mY($mr
nn--=-I, r{ yn i:nrl $i.1,r.

¶43

.Mr.Syed Hajee Hussain and Another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

.Mr.Syed Hajee Hussain and Another v. State 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

Banothu Nilima versus State Bank of India

Nagolu Gopal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sri. a. Sita Rama Rao

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Rai Srinivas

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Karengular Soumyalatha

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr. Ravvarapu Vishnu Vardhan