Dismissed

Syed Nasir Hussain And another v. State Bank of India

DRT22 May 2025SA/326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged the Respondent Bank's possession of schedule property under the SARFAESI Act as illegal. The Tribunal held that the Applicants failed to establish valid grounds, referencing a prior dismissed application and the bank's procedural steps.

What did the court decide?

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

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.326,/2023

¶5

1.Syed Nasir Hussain, S/o Syed Munavar Hussain, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o Plot NO.67,,Adarshnagar, Zahe er ab ad, M e d ak- S O 222 O .

¶6

Smt.SheikGulzar Begum, W/o Syed nasir Hussain, Aged 42 years, Occ:house wife, _^{R/o Plot No.67, Adarshnagar,} Zah e e r ab ad, M e dak- 5 O 2 22 O

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

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

¶9

RespondentBank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶11

; Sn M.polisettg Si P.V. SatAanaraA ana

¶12

:ORDER:-

¶13

1' This application is fired by the Appricants u/s.r7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, chanenging the action of the RespondentBank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM,R.R.District in Crl.Ia-.LNo.232 I 2O23and, to declare the same as illegal.

¶14

in the application, in brief, are that: '& ?2ill't.*t< ?n^{The ApplicAnts} ed Housing loan and Top-up loan from the against the mortgage of schedule property. ,. 'r..' ,.-"--7 i1y'3?-{,r '\5;1';3i1';'il;

¶15

Thereafter, the Applicants could not pay some instalments^{and so,} the RespondentBank issued demand notice^u/ s¹³⁽²⁾ of^the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 but the said^{notice was not servedon the} Applicants.The impugned^{possessionnoticewas also not served on} the Applicants and the said^notice was^{neitherpublished 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.^Districtfor appointment of advocate commissioner for^{taking physical possession} ofthe schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶16

The Respondent Bank Iiled their Replydenying all^{the adverse} allegations made in the SA. It is contended^{that the Applicants having} availed loan facilities, committed default in^{repaymentof outstanding} dues and so, the loan account was classified as^{NPA and a demand} notice dt.O1.06.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 was issued} and the said notice was served on the Applicants.^{Thereafterthe} Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.^{1 1.O8.2O22for 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. The^{Respondent bank also fiIed} O.A.349 12022 before this Tribunal and the^{saidOA was allowedon} 13.O2.2024 . On earlier occasion, the Applicants also^filedSA 79 12023 challenging the Auction Saie Notice^{issuedby the Bank} and the same is posted for arguments. Accordingly, the^Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

the Applicants and Ld. Counsel^for the material brought on record.

¶18

arise for consideration are,-

¶19

2² ilAY^?rl25 Applicants established anA ualid^grounds for the action of the Respondent Bank for taking phgsical

¶20

schedule^{propertA u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct'} possession of^t?Le the orders^{of Ld.CMM,R.R'District?} 2002^pursuantto

¶21

iil To what relieP

¶22

Potnt No,(llr

¶23

During the^{course of arguments,Ld' Counsel for the Applicants and} Ld. counsel for^{the Respondent bank reiterated their respective} versions as stated^suPra.

¶24

There is no^{dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed loan} facilities^{from the RespondentBank and thereaftercommitted default} in repayment^{of loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as} NPA by the^{Respondent Bank' There is also no disputeregardingthe} fact that the^{schedulepropertyismortgaged infavour of the} Respondent^{Banktowards security for the loan availedby the} Applicants.

¶25

B. The specific^{contention of the Applicants is that the RespondentBank} has not issued^{demand notice and possession notice tothe} Applicantsand^{without issuingany such notices' the Respondent} bank is^{not entitledtoproceedu/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct' 2OO2 for} taking^{physicalpossession ofthe scheduleproperty'}

¶26

g. Per contra,^{the RespondentBank contended that they havefollowed} the SARFAE-]S!-Ac . -prescribed ' -,:..,. t,^{2OO2 procedure and Rules made thereunder laid down under the in issuing provisions all theof} ,.f.""I?:l'no,Les^{to the Applicantsand in also in taking physical} r'r ''':j prilsession'of the^{scheduleproperty'} i* l.-.: " i^{2 t4AY ?rrr5} :" ii '^:.10. :.10. During tfle5gt iut"t of arguments' Ld' Counsel for the Respondent 'i:'n- u""r"'mEi*=Efu6v^{of the orderdt'26'o2'2o25passed by this Tribunal in} ',:""t*thz ,<sup>-i &#ffiw' .' 3

¶27

SA7912023. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that the said SA is liled by the Applicants challenging the^possession notice and sale notice 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, the Applicants are not entitled to re-agitate the non-receipt of demand notice and possession notice in the present SA.

¶28

¶29

After issuing Possession Notice dt.11.O8.2O22, the Respondent Bank is entitled 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 physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicants.

¶30

Point No.(iil):-

¶31

So, in Jh_e circumstances, I hold that the Applicants have failed to ,..-,...' ' estahl{sh,,4lry,. ground for challenging the steps initiated by the " i'a-"'^{'' *1i'1'} "r ' Responitent:'[qnf, for taking physical possession of the schedule ' .', ' f-;:- r.'' ', properiy. "i i ? t'tAY 7t!25

i\r \r\ i'

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dctated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and^{pronounced bg me in} the open court on this the 22"d dag of^{Mag, 2025).}

¶39

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
'r: r . uAy ?fl25
{bq%
\v'' .rfijt,,.,1,,.
oii,;".l#il""'

Syed Nasir Hussain And another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Nasir 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sri Dhanvanthari Sean Centre

Ms Hanuman Traders Rep by its Prop Namburi Vijay versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Guduru Sandhya Smitha versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of India versus M/S. Revanth Sai Earth Movers

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India