Dismissed

c shekar singh v. Repco Bank

DRT30 Apr 2025SA/335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's securitisation application challenging the respondent bank's physical possession of secured assets. The tribunal held there was no irregularity or illegality as the respondent complied with notice requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Consequently, an interim stay on further proceedings was revoked.

What did the court decide?

The secured asset application was dismissed and the interim stay granted earlier was revoked.

c shekar singh versus Repco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL# AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{THIRTIETHDAY OF APRIL,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B'COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATIoN^{APPLIATIoN No. 335 OF 2023}

¶5

Mr. C. Shekar Singh S/o C. Vijay Singh Age: 42^years, Occ:^SelfEmPloYee H.No.9-1-224/A/4/13 Prasanthi Nagar, Langar^House Hydera bad- 500 008,^{Telang a na,}

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Repco Home Finance Ltd. Rep by Authorised Officer Habsiguda Branch H. No. 7-148, lst Floor Habsiguda Cross Road Habsiguda, Hyderabad Telangana.

¶9

...,Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

Mr. Arunn Marripeddi.

¶12

Mr. Y. Narsimha Reddy.

¶13

-: B-DEB:-

¶14

Applicant filed the Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to aS "SARFAESI Act") assailing the action of respondent in taking the physical^possession of the application schedule property through advocate commissioner vide eviction notice fnng-''- t^';h

I .z' ./-.\l "\

(,)/ 2\

5A 335/2023

dated 24.07.2023 pursuant to orders in Crl. M.p.No.492 of 2023.

¶19

The case of the applicant as per the averments of securitisation application, in brief, is that the respondent is tryin9 to take the physical possession of the SA schedule property without giving any breathing time to regularise the loan account and repay the loan amount. Applicant has so far paid EMIS totalling to Rs.Lo,72,073/- between the period from 16.05.2015 to 26.02.20L9. However, he could not pay further EMIS due to losses suffered in the business and is presently working in a private company to earn his livelihood. Respondent issued possession notice dated 30,07.2019. Thereafter, respondent was apprised of these developments. The demand notice is not served properly.

¶20

The respondent bank filed reply statement contradicting the allegations being false and baseless invented for the purpose of filing the SA. Due to default in repayment of loan amount, the account was classified as NpA on 30.11.2020. The respondent issued demand notice under Section 13(Z) of the SARFAESI Act dated 74,07.2021. The demand notice has been sent to the applicant by registered post and also aFfixed on the secured asset. The applicant, co-applicant and guarantor acknowledged receipt of demand notice. Thereafter, respondent issued possession notice u/s 13(4) on 23,tt.2021. The possession notice has been sent to the applicant. co-applicant and guarantor by registered post, amxed on the secured asset and published in two newspapers on 27,1t.?021. Therefore, the respondent has complied the provisions contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules there under in serving the

¶21

YhtY!-. 'ir ' 'io'c 'r' -

¶22

¶23

sA 33s/2023

¶24

requisite notices on the borrower/ guarantor. Accordingly,

¶25

respondent prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶26

Applicant's right of arguments was forfeited vide docket order dated 02.04.2025 as there was no representation on his behalf. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent reported no oral arguments.^perused the written arguments filed by the respondent and the material brought on record.

¶27

In its written arguments, respondent Company pointed out that the appricant has not compried the conditionar orders passed by this Tribunal on 17.0g.2023 and 05.01.2024 in IAs.2378 of 2023 and 403g of 2023 respectivety. Hence the applicant is not entifled to any relief in the SA.

¶28

The points for consideration are as follows : _

¶29

i) Wether the Applicant made out a valid ground for interdicting the

¶30

proceedings of respondent bank u/s l4 ofrhe SARFAESI Actfor takng the

¶31

physical possession of the- SA schedule property?

¶32

i, To what reliefr

¶33

Point No. (i):

¶34

Applicant challenged the taking of physical possession of the secured asset through Advocate Commissioner on the ground of not being afforded an opportunity to repay the loan amount. He further alleged non-compliance of provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) in serving the demand notice and the possession notice by the respondent Company. per contra, respondent rejected the contentions of the applicant out rightly by placing on record the photostat copies ,o_(_.demand^notice

¶35

12YTff.rw.s

¶36

sA 335/2023

¶37

daled L4.O7.2021,^{possessionnotice dated 23'11'2021,postal} acknowledgement^{cards, paperpubllcationsand affixtureof} possession notice vide materlal^{paPersat page Nos 15 to 24} along with the^{reply statement' These documents are not} disputed by^{the applicant.Thus, the respondenthas amply} proved compliance of^{procedure contemPlatedunder the} provisions of the SARFAEIS^{Act and the Rules there underin} taking the^{Securitsationmeasures against the securedasset'As} no irregularity or^{illegality is found in the securitisation} measures against^{the secured asset, the sA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

In the result the^{SA fails and is hereby dismissed'The interim} stay in respect of^{stay of all furtherproceedingsother than} physical possession^{grantedon 05.01'2024in IA'4038 of 2023} stands revoked^{in viewof dismlssalof SA on merits'}

¶40

Consequently. Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any, shall} stand closed, No^{order as to costs.}

¶41

Communicate a^{copyof this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in official^{Web Portal.}

¶42

(Dic'toted to the Steno, cor.ected, signed ond^{pronounced by me in the open coilrton} this the 3Oi doy^ot' April,2025).

¶43

,N)tl

¶44

( (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

c shekar singh v. Repco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

c shekar singh v. Repco Bank

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

Sri Devineni Baswa Narendra Babu versus Union Bank of India

Venkat Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Vakkuntula Srikanth

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Annapanedi Ramanaiah

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Chimakurthi Nvdss Ram Kumar