Dismissed

Mohd.Basith v. The Agrasen Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT22 Oct 2025SA/410/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the secured creditor's steps to take physical possession of mortgaged properties via an advocate commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found the creditor had complied with statutory notices and Rules, holding the proceedings legal and dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The application filed challenging the steps taken for taking physical possession of the schedule properties was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mohd.Basith versus The Agrasen Coop.Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER. 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.41c,/2c23

¶5

Mohd. Basith, S/o Mohd. Afzal, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5-7-54 l, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer D.No.15-2-3911392/ t, Siddiamber B azx br anch, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad-SoO O 12.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counselforthe Applicant : SriT. Sidhar Reddy Courtselforthe Respondent : Sri P. Ramachandran

¶11

Reserued on Pronounced on

¶12

Uploaded to tle uebsite on

¶13

:11.O9.2025 : 22.10.2025 :22.10.2025

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

l. This application is filed by the Applicant u/s t7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties through Advocate commissioner^pursuant to the orders of Ld.Sr.Civil Judge cum CMM, R.R. Cr1.M.P.Nos.46l23 & 47 123 and to declare

¶16

the

¶17

¶18

$,.rr&*"AAAOf,^{th$pptcation,in brief,are that:}

¶19

The Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule properties. Even though, the Applicant was repaying the loan instalments regularly, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2and issued demand notice dt'17 '11.2022 u/s r3(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter' the Respondent without issuing possession notice to the Applicant and without publishing the said notir newspapers and without arrixing the same ";;;: :;::^':l"'" initiated proce edin gs #H J ilr",'.I:"::.r"1:: ":, .f :I:ffi properties under Section 14 of the SARFAES crr.M.p.Nos.4 6&42 /2o2son the nle orLd.cMM, i i::jff ,?_# for appointment of advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, R.R.District, LB Nagar issued notices dt'01'17'2023 to the Applicant and so, the said notices are not legal, valid and binding on the Applicant. Hence the SA.

¶20

a The Respondent filed their Reply denying an the adverse allegations made in the SA and co the Responde,, o, ";:;:""1-.*. Trffi::, Ti,::",H"::[ properties. Thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classilied as NpA and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.l|.1l.2L22to the Applicant and the same was received by the employees of the Applicant.. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. lg.O 1.2023 and the said notice was published in I sch ed ure propertie s. "rf,f:i':::"ffi " J ff f::.;ffi ;::: contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2and Rures ::: :r:..::der in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the , the Respondent approached Ld.CMM, R.R. ,ointment of advocate commissioner for taking the schedule properties and so, the said the Respondent u/s 14 of the SARFAESI ;,Sit,z^{bob XAWfr} . Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the SA. 2

¶21

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

¶22

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶23

i. whether tle Appticant has establisled a cha,enging the steps initiated bg the Respon;:r';:":;;;:;":;

¶24

possessron of the sch.edule properties through ad.uocate commissioner?

¶25

ii. To uthat retief?

¶26

Potnt l,to.(il:_

¶27

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

¶28

7 ' There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appricant ava,ed 10an from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of tre schedule properties towards securidr for the said roan and thereafter, the Appricant committed default in repaying the loan dues. There is r no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent decrared ,n. ,ou"'

¶29

r account as NpA and issued demand notice dt. 17.1 1.2o22uls r3(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 and the same was received by the Applicant. In fact, along with the SA, the Applicant filed copy of the said demand notice.

¶30

B. The :\ tion of the Applicant is thara t without witt ^,, r serving 66*.:__ possessron_ - .q. and without complying with Rule 8(t)&(2) of ;Silibd;df; t) Rules 2OO2, the Respondent straightaway, i"a p,oiilti.,g" physical possession of the schedule f/ct 2W^*

¶31

¶32

properties through advocate commissioner u/s 14 0f the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 arrd so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶33

Per contra' Respondent contended that they have duly forowed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing a, the statutory notices to the Applicant and arso in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶34

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that as there was no response to the demand notice dt. 17.11.2022, the Respondent issued possession notice dt'18'01'2023 u/s l3(4) of tre Act, 2oo2 tothe Appricant and others and the said notice was hand derivered to the Applicant as evidenced by the endorsement of the Applicant on the office copy of the said possession notice' The said possession notice was pubrished in Urdu and Engrish da,y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication frled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed nute AlfyAlZ) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶35

As per the provisions of Section 14 0f sARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, thesecured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. ::t th: in:tant "u"9le(T issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applica4t, ttrel'.rji;t ,, ^.-.^j._ _ -.i.,^{,*- Rordent being securedcreditor, approached} agar u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by fi ling- Crt. M p .t.'i "i.+ O U+zi appointment of advocate commissioner ro1 qr.irgzpfiy0f,Lr2ffi""." of the schedule properties. Ld.CMM, R.R. 4

¶36

District, LB Nagar, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner issued notices dt'or'77'2023 to .he Applicant for vacating the schedure properties' So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physicar possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 0f the sARFAESI Act, 2002 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶37

12' So' considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Appricant is not entitred to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal witr the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physicar possession of the schedure properties u/s 14 0f the SARFAESI Act'2002 ' Accordingry, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶38

polnt No.(il)r

¶39

In the result, SA 4lO / 2023 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶40

14' consequentry, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

Hl:fttLr*i,';;;;nscribed^{bv tter,coftected.,sisnedandpronounced} ba me in the open court on this tE

¶43

sd/-

¶44

(c. coPI CHANDI ia i)t 22ricT?.w :ii PRESIDING OFFICEI{ ; c:vJsst^Rf,grefrar ff;^' Dr? r.r, rr'fi rF.t-4 BA o.

Mohd.Basith v. The Agrasen Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Basith v. The Agrasen Coop.Urban Bank 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

Om Sri Bhavani Industries versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Dugyala Venkat Rao versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises versus Union Bank of India

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc