Dismissed

Mr Prashanth K v. Bank of Baroda

DRT29 Apr 2025SA/312/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of the SFR Act challenging measures leading to possession of mortgaged property, the Tribunal dismissed the application. It held that the demand notice was duly served and the possession notice was properly served, published, and affixed as per statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Securitization Application No. 312 of 2023 is dismissed. All pending interim applications closed. Parties bear respective costs.

Mr Prashanth K versus Bank of Baroda — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 29th day of April 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No.312 of 2023

¶5

Sri Prashanth K, S/o. Late K. Sundar Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.3-113, Swagath, Saraswathi Nagar, Pangala Village, Kapu Taluk, Udupi District 576 122.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Shri Ranga, Opp: Vidya Vardhaka High School, N.H. 66, Main Road, Pangala, Kapu Taluk, Udupi District 576 122.

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :-

¶11

For Applicant :- Shri E. Devaraja For Respondent :- M/s. R & J Associates …….

¶12

2 SA 312/2023

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The possession notice dated 16.11.2023 and the measures leading to the same is under challenge in this Securitization Application (SA) filed under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

¶15

The applicant and his Late Father K Sundar as the borrower and guarantor had availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs. It is also not in dispute that mortgage over the schedule property has been created. The applicant further contends that they were prompt in repayments and had made remittance up to Rs.6 lakhs. However the applicant further admits that there occurred defaults in repayments, which according to the applicant is due to lockdown. It is also admitted that a demand notice was issued which the applicant claims that the same is not served on the legal heirs of late Sundhar. The applicant is also having a contention about the service of impugned possession notice. Another contention taken by the applicant is that various facilities extended

¶16

3 SA 312/2023

¶17

by the Reserve Bank of India and government were not accorded to the applicant.

¶18

Along with the SA the applicant had produced the impugned possession notice.

¶19

The Respondent has filed their objections inter alia contending that the applicant is not entitled for any of the relief. The contention that applicant had remitted Rs.6 Lakhs is also denied by the respondent. It is also stated that the demand notice was duly served on the borrower as well as the guarantor. In respect of the possession notice also, it is stated that the same was duly sent to the applicant, published and affixed as required by the statute.

¶20

Along with the objection the respondent had produced the

¶21

following documents:

¶22

i) Demand notice along with its acknowledgment ii) Possession notice iii) Paper publication of possession notice iv) Photographs evidencing affixture of possession notice v) E-mail confirmation as to the CERSAI registration

¶23

4 SA 312/2023

¶24

Heard the Counsels for both sides and considered the pleadings in the SA and also the defence set up in the objection in the light of documentary evidence. The only issue that arises for consideration in this matter is, as to the legality of procedure followed by the respondent in their measures leading to impugned possession notice.

¶25

Applicant is assailing the measures primarily contending that despite the death of Late Mr. Sundhar, no notice was issued to the legal representatives. Though name of such legal representatives were given, no particulars as to the date of death is stated in the SA. It is not specifically pleaded whether the deceased person had extended any mortgage or whether he is simply a personal guarantor. In the absence of any plea as to the status of the deceased person coupled with the fact that none of the legal heirs who were not served had approached this Tribunal leads to the Tribunal to reject the contention of the applicant in this regard. If the deceased person had only extended personal guarantee, there is no question of issuing notice to the legal heirs .

¶26

5 SA 312/2023

¶27

For the applicant’s contention that there is no proper service of the demand notice, the respondent had produced the acknowledgment evidencing the service of demand notice on the borrowers. In respect of the possession notice, the applicant is disputing the affixture and publication which is proved to be complied with as the respondent had produced the proof of service of affixture and publication. The respondent had also produced proof of CERSAI registration.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above aspects, it is to be concluded that there is no merit in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

In the result SA No.312 of 2023 is dismissed. All pending IAs stand closed. The parties to bear their respective costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to PS directly on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April 2025)

¶31

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Prashanth K v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prashanth K v. Bank of Baroda

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

Uco Bank versus Jasmine Kapoor

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Arvinder

State Bank of India versus Mr.Janamjoy Prasad

Bank of India versus M/S Commercial Industries, a Partnership Firm,Partner Mr.Sujit Bhushan Tiwari and Ors.

Mr Sutapta Sikdar versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Aravind L H versus State Bank of India