Allowed

Arekatike Narsamma Arekatike Ashok v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

DRT8 Jan 2025SA/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal quashed the Respondent's possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as the financial institution failed to justify its action or prove compliance with statutory requirements, allowing the installment application filed under Section 17.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession notice dated 04.01.2024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is hereby quashed.

Arekatike Narsamma Arekatike Ashok versus Aptus Value Housing… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.35/2C24

¶5

1 . Mrs.Arekatike Narsamma W/o A. Ashok

¶6

Mr.Arekatike Ashok S/o A. Durgaji

¶7

(both are residing at H.NO.4-59, Kollur(v), Ramachandrapuram(M), Sangareddy, Medak Dist.

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

APTUS Value Housing finance India Ltd., 88, Doshi Towers, 205, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-6000 10.

¶11

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants Respondent

: Sn S. Srikanth

: Exparte

ORDER

The Applicants Iiled the present Securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest pO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the possession O24 issued by the Respondent against the sc t aside the same il,sv; as illegal and void. .. ;,'t n o rrNqnfi "

¶18

the rhe averments made ,ri fu ..orr1,.'ill* * brier, are that, Applicants availed nor"iiq?RiqJro.. thS,,R:"pondent in the year 2017 to a rune of Rs.14 r"it{u#E[!,s;.ia' of Rs.S rakhs. It is

¶19

sA3sl2]24

¶20

submitted that due to temporary liquidity crunch, the Applicants could not make some payments and all of a sudden, the Respondent without issuing demand notice, straight away, affixed the possession Notice dt.o4.0r.2o24on the schedule property and as such, the said possession notice is not legal and valid. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice on the Applicants and the said possession notice was also not published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶21

¶22

The Respondent in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation and so, the Respondent was set exparte.

¶23

4' Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and perused the material brought on record.

¶24

5' Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶25

i) whether the Applicants haue establislrcd. ang ualid. ground. for setting aside the Posse.ssion Notice dt.04.01.2024 issued. by the Respondent against the schedule property?

¶26

iil To uhat relief?

¶27

Point No.(il

¶28

The Applicants filed the present sA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking possession of the application schedure property. But, the Respondent who invoked the sARFAESI proceedings against the schedule ,^failed to^justify their action by filing Reply and prod terial documents to prove that they have strictly

¶29

fo r9\ns of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed ti.fr,-,a". issifiS trre possession notice dt.04.0 1.2024 for

¶30

sA3512024

¶31

taking possession of the secured asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the sA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶32

Point No.(iil:-

¶33

In the result, SA 35/2024 is allowed.

¶34

Accordingly, the impugned possession Notice dt.04.o t.2024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA scheduie property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules thereunder.

¶35

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the Piuate secretary, transcibed. bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced by me in the open court on this the g,ndag of Januarl, ZOiSt.

¶38

(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

JAN
2rffi I
l '{'
*Csi#
7q'#::f

¶40

TRUE 6OPY ^-, L^{l, s {*-.1}

¶41

NP".i, ff},DEAAgAD.

Arekatike Narsamma Arekatike Ashok v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arekatike Narsamma Arekatike Ashok v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

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

M Ravikumar Reddy versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms. Bachu Soujanya

Canara Bank versus M/s. Laksheya Group

State Bank of India versus M/S. Saa Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. R.P. Industry

State Bank of India versus Sri Shaik Ibrahim