Dismissed

Gouse Peer Khan v. Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

DRT30 Apr 2025SA/353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a securitisation application challenging the recovery tribunal's acceptance of physical possession of secured property by a finance corporation. The court found the respondent followed SARFAESI Act procedures and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application fails and is dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Gouse Peer Khan versus Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

rN THE DEBT'. AT HYDEMBADREcovERy TRTBUNAL *4,

¶2

DATED THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: sH. RAMESHWAR

¶4

,0.t,#ffHii.1.t"fl '^{L LB' (Hons )' M A'}

¶5

SECURITISATIoN APPLIATIoN No. 353 oF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gouse^peer Khan S/o P. Mahaboob Khan Aged about 50 years Occ. : Business,^'R/o 3-111_C. Pt igudundla Colonv Ananthapuram KLD Anantapur Dist.

¶8

.......Appticant.

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorised Officer Erstwh ile Dewan Housino Finance Corporation Lti D. No. 7-1-615, 616 & 617/4 Imperial Towers, 4th Floor Unit 12 & 3 Ameerpet Main Road Hyderabad-500016.

¶11

Erstwhite Dewan Housino Finance Corporation kd: Pirmal Capital & Housina Finance Ltd. unit No.6O'1 6th Floor, Amiti Buitdino Agasthya Corporate pirk Kamani Junction Opp: Fire Station LBS Marg, Kurla West Mumbai-40007A. .'/A /r'/wTt'-- -- i\'' 'c" ,/./

....Respondents.

sA 353/2023

Counsel^{for the APPlicant} Co u n^{sel fo r Res Pondents}

Mr.^{B. vikram.}

Ms. P.s.^Suiatha'

.:ORDER:-

Applicant^{filed the SecuritisationApplicationu/s 17 of the} Securitization^{and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets and} Enforcement^{of Security Interest Act' 2OO2 (hereinafter} referred^{to as "SARFAESI Act ") assailingthe action of} respondent^{in taking the physical possession of the aPplication} schedule^{property through advocate commissionerappointed} in Crl.M.P'No'70^{of 2023 on the flle of the Chiefludicial} Magistrate-cum-Principal^{Asslstant SessionsJudge' Anantha-} puramu'

¶20

The case^{of the applicant as per the avermentsof securitisation} application,^{in brief, is that the respondent committedillegality} by approaching^{the Chief ludicial Magistrate-cum-Principal} Assistant^{Session ludge,Ananthapuramto obtain orders to take} the^{physicalpossessionthroughAdvocate Commissioner'The} payments made^{by the applicant havenot been accounted for'} A higher rate^{of interest is chargedto the loan account'The} respondent^{hasnot compliedthe procedurecontemplatedunder} Rules 8(1),^{8(2), 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 9(1) of the Securiw} Interest^{(Enforcement)RulesApplicanthas been regular in} paying the EMIS without^{any defaultApplicant informedthe} respondent that^{due to somehealth Problems' he suffered} financial hardship.^{Applicantapproachedthe respondent for} regularisation^{of the loan account.} b?-n*'f

¶21

sA 3s3/2O23

¶22

The respondent bank filed the reply statement. The sum and substance of the reply statement is that due to^defaultin repayment of loan amount, the account^{was classifiedas NPA} on 01.11.2018, followed by^{a demandnotice underthe} SARFAESI^{Act dated 25.01.2019'The demand notice has been} sent to the applicant^{by registered post besides publication in} newspapers,^{The postal receipts, track report and paper} publication are^{annexedto the reply statement'With no} payment was^{forthcoming' possessionnotice u/s 13(4) has} been^{issued on 14'10'2019'The possession notice has been} sent by^{registered post' affixed on the secured asset and} '

¶23

published^{in two n"-ui'Oup""on t7'10'2019' The postal} afflxation^{photographs and paper}

¶24

receipts,^{track rep;'} puurrcution,^{,,.r j:,fj::T"T.Ti5#;"} - H the^{replv tttt"'"1.,"i1} . rn" lYt?'"., prior ro nrine or

¶25

contractual^{rate of} 18.08.2023^ives ;;J:; in^{the sA ror}

¶26

propertY^{rras ue1ffirJ} nogring^suwi' tft"^{Sn iEelf' Tht} rirahts^{reported that}

¶27

adjudication'

¶28

¶29

4 :".;:'JT:iffi*:1J;:#*#H":"" appearing^{for the rE>t'-"} ^^"r'naoY

¶30

record' r- th€ c^. thg^IeSPorlue'''

¶31

J' s.^{Learned'"::-T'} JJ,'"""::"'"ilrfll;h^;:t:"1'-[ submitted^{":^-:"r",} right^{from the} securitisation^{t"":::^} ot-^{obtainins -"::1:t:: t''iuunat atte'} trrr^the ,'1",?1.,^{;rri'.:1'^::::::'J}t'"properwon}

¶32

"-"o." sARFAEsl^o"tor"J- rhysicat^rXE|; raking^{over u' -.-} ///.

¶33

sNl$tltll

¶34

18.08.2023. The a[egations over the non-compriance of the procedure raid down in the SARFAESI Act and the Rures thereunder in issuing the demand notice and the possession notice are baseress and contrary to the facts obtaining at the ground rever. The respondent has praced ail materiar papers along with the repty statement evidencing compliance of the procedure as raid down in the 'ARFAESI^{Act and the Rures} :::::J:lTJ:^:::'l:,::"^{demandnotice u/s 13(2)} and ra* w*h ,r" J;;Ji; ii!?"_:::::i,Rur_es 8(1) ano B(2) rn property havins arready been taken or,li: ::J:::j.schedure very SA itself becomes infructuous. ommissioner, the

¶35

The points for crrnsideration are as follows : _

¶36

, Wether t ,otid sr::lttticau made "^{:;t'iirttfrr::{iiii';} PhYsicat^*ru$i 't;;;': 'o?nt "t' ; ;i,ifi,i;;;;7; i- ", 17,,,r:r,!; i, To rTqy relie/?

¶37

7.' Appticant ci physica, ,ott"ung"o the € cornrn,ss,orj."u""'on or"lnttt'o'^{of respor} ffiffi#Ffiiiffi **',T ;:];i:'"i,." o.,I'.::"^;,"';:; ;H::."::" t e' posra' ;';i,fr#*::l#Iir

¶38

sA 3s3/2023

¶39

ment cards, postal track reports, paper publications and affixture of possession notice vide material papers at page Nos. 16 to 35 along with the reply statement. These documents are not disputed by the applicant. Thus, the respondent has demonstrated that it had followed the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of the SARFAEIS Act and the Rules there under in taklng the Securitsation measures against the secured asset. Respondent has taken measures for physical possession of secured asset as entiued u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, no irregularity or illegality is found in the securitisation measures against the secured asset. Accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

8. Point No.(ii):

¶41

In the result the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶42

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in official Web Portal.

¶44

(Dictoted to the Steno, coffected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3Ob doy ofApril,2025).

¶45

9--^*.dtt

¶46

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Gouse Peer Khan v. Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouse Peer Khan v. Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation 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

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