Dismissed

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

DRT21 May 2025SA/327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This SARFAESI Act application challenging a possession notice was dismissed. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the bank complied with Section 13 procedures by serving the demand notice, issuing a reply to objections, and publishing/affixing the possession notice as required by Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there are no merits. Interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Ms Hanuman Traders Rep by its Prop Namburi Vijay versus Kotak… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THISTHE 2 I^ST DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.327 /2023

¶4

M/s Hanuman Traders Rep. by its Prop:Mr.Namburi Vijay, S/o SatyanarayanaNamburi, Aged 35 years, Occ:business, H.No.9-49l 1, New 8-12l5, Gundrathi, Madugunkoni, Jerla Mandal, Khammam-507306. . .. Applicant

¶5

Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized ofhcer 27 BKC, C27, G- Block, BandraKurlaComlex, Bndra Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra ... Respondent bank

¶6

Counsel for the Applicant : Si D.Raghatrulu Counsel for Respondent Bank : Si B.Rauindra Reddg

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof} Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct,2OO2} (SARFAESI Act,2002) challenging the Possession^{Notice dt.24 .O8.2O23} issued by the Respond in respect df the schedule^property and to declare the bitrary.

¶9

The avermen brief are as follows:

¶10

sA 327 /23

¶11

Originally, the Applicant availed Term loan from the Bajaj Finance Ltd. in the year 2019 and created mortgage in respect of the schedule^property and the said loan account was subsequently transferred to the Respondent Bank herein. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant could not repay some instalmentsand so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent Bank and the Respondent Bank took possession of the schedule property without serving any possession notice. The Respondent Bank has failed to consider the objections raised by the applicant in response to the demand notice issued by the Respondent. The Respondent also failed to publish the impugned possession notice in two leading newspapers and the said notice was also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶12

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan, failed to repay the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.31.08.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002and the said notice was received by the Applicant and they submittedobjections to theRespondentBank vide letter dt. 19.09.2022 and to the said objections, the Respondent issued reply on 08.10.2022 u/s 13(3A) of the Act, 2002. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.24.O8.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent Bank^{prayed to} dismiss the SA.

¶13

for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent ial brought on record.

¶14

for consideration are

¶15

sA327123

¶16

i. whether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.08.2023 issued bg the Respondent Bank against the schedule property?

¶17

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶18

Point .l\Io.(i):-

¶19

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

¶20

The undisputed facts of the case are that originally, the Applicant availed loan from the Bajaj Finance Ltd. and thereafter the loan account was transferred to the Respondent Bank. The said loan was secured by way of mortgage in respect of the schedule property. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA and the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.3I.O8.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the Applicant received the said notice.

¶21

The specilic contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent Bank has not issued reply to the objections raised by the Applicant in response to the demand notice dt.31.08.2022 and thereby violated Sectionl3(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.The further contention of the Applicant is that the lm ion notice aI.Z+.OA.ZOZS was neither published in two r affixed on the schedule property.

¶22

sA 327 /23

¶23

Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and, Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice.

¶24

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bankfiled relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.31.O8.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment filed by the Bank. In response to the said demand notice, the Applicant submitted their objections vide letter dt.lg.og.2022 and after receipt of the said objections, the Respondent Bank issued reply on 08.10.2022 and the said reply was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post to the correct address of the Applicant, so it can be deemed that the said reply was received by the Applicant and thereby the Bank duly complied with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.24.O1.2O2S and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal receipts filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in Business Standard and Mana Telangana daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Bank. Thus, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed Rule S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the schedule property.

¶25

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the RespondentBank has the procedure laid down under the provisions of Rules made thereunder in issuing demand n tice to the Applicantand there are no til{ point is answered in favour of the

¶26

t"qPffffi, the Applicant.

¶27

sA 327 /23

¶28

Polnt No.(ll):-

¶29

1 1. In the result, SA 327 12023 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30