Allowed

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants v. Hdfc Bank

DRT24 Jan 2025SA/408/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal quashed a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act for non-compliance with notice requirements and failure of the respondents to file a reply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Possession Notice dated 20.09.2023 issued against the schedule property is quashed. The Respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh after following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 241H DAY OF JANUARY, 2C-25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER sA.No.40A/2|..j.23

¶3

1.M/s Bharath Traders Alam and Jaggary Merchants Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.mahammad Vali Babu

¶4

#8-92, Main Road, Opp.Old SBH, Eturunagaram, Warangal-506 1 65.

¶5

Mr.Mahammad Vali Babu, S/o Jamal Khan Mohammad, #8-92, Main Road, Opp.Old SBH, Eturunagaram, Warangal-506 1 65

¶6

... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.HDFC Bank, Warangal branch, Rep. by its Branch Head, Sy.No.797,

¶9

Ground floor, Warangal road Warangal-506 132.

¶10

HDI.-C Bank, Begumpet, Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶11

1- 10-60/3, Begumpet,

¶12

Suryodaya, Hyderaabd-500016. ... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the : Sn N.V. Subba Raju Respondents : Exparte 23 JA II 2025

¶14

The the ritisation Application u/s.17 of the nd ction of Financial Assets and

¶15

Ilnforcement t Act, 2OO'2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2)

¶16

challenging the Possession Notice dt.20.09.2023 issued by the Respondents against the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by Applicant No.2 engaged in the business of Ginger and Jaggery and availed credit facilities from the 1"t Respondent and mortgaged the schedule property. It is submitted that due to liquidity crunch, the Applicants could not make some payments andall of a sudden, the Respondents issued dcmand noticc and the said notice was not served on all the borrowers and the Respondents have also not complied with Section 13(3)A of the SARFAESI Act,2002. The Respondents failed to serve the impugned Possession Notice dt.20.09.2023 on the Applicants and the said possession notice was also not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶22

I Whether the Applicants haue established arut ualid ground for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.20.O9.2023 issued by the Respondents ropertg?

¶23

ii) ro what *u.fi:;ff^{- -^ffi "</sup>}

¶24

ii; 2 3 ,lAir ?oz5 *l Point No.(i) t\H c rr 't iltt llll7 ;iJ

¶25

¶26

-.,the proceedings the SARFAESI ffi ^:'J:;"il:::W,r*pem#ffi

¶27

Act,2oo2 for taking possession of the application schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by fiting Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that they have strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder in issuing the possession notice dt.20.O9.2023 for taking possession of the secured asset. The Respondents have 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 Appticants. 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.

¶28

Point No.(ii):-

¶29

In ttre result, SA 4O812023 is allowcd.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned Possession Notice dt.2o.o9.2o2z issued by the Respondents against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondentsare at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶31

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

¶32

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

signed and pronounced by

¶34

sd/-

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants v. Hdfc 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

Mr P Chinnakommulu versus City Union Bank Limited

M S Gnr Products India versus State Bank of India

Ms Venkatshwara Industries versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

State Bank of India versus Sri. Bora Swami Naidu

State Bank of India versus Valluri Dhanunjaya Rao

D Sadanand and others versus Indian Bank