Dismissed

Ski Metal Craft v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

DRT22 Aug 2025SA/430/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicants' Securitization Application challenging a possession notice issued by the respondent financier. The court held that procedural requirements under the Securitization Act and Rules were satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, to stand closed.

Ski Metal Craft versus Bajaj Finance Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 22NODAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B Com,L LB (Hons)' M A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

Securitization^{Application No'430OF 2023}

¶5

Ski Metal Craft^{Pvt Ltd}

¶6

Rep by its^{Directors Smt Anithal4yadam} W/o M Srikanth^and

¶7

M Srikanth, S/o^{Late Sri M. Kumar}

¶8

Both r/o Plot^{No.23, Sri TirumalaEnclave} KausalYa Estates,^{Kha rkana} Secu nd^{e ra ba d - 500009}

¶9

Smt. Anitha Myadam Wo^{M. Srika nth}

¶10

lvl. Srikanth

¶11

S/o Late Sri M.^Kumar

¶12

Both r/o Plot No.23,^{Sri TirumalaEnclave} Kausalya Estates,^Kharkana Secu nderabad-500009

¶13

.......APPlica^nts.

¶14

Versus

¶15

Bajaj Finance Limited Having its Cororate^{Office at Panchsil TechPark} 3'd Floor, Viman^{Nagar, Pune-411014} Branch Office :3/6/-55,^{Mezzanine Floor} Liberty Plaza, Basheerbag^{h, Himayathnagar} Hyderabad

¶16

... Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr. Srinivas Bazar/}

¶18

G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶19

Counsel for Respondent^{: Mr.S. Nagesh Reddy}

¶20

-:o-B-LqB:-

¶21

The Applicants filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s} 17 of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} .^{s)I..,. r''} . }:

¶22

PaBe 2 of 5

¶23

SA N0.430/2023

¶24

"the Act") to set aside the^possession notice dated 23.09.2023 against the application schedule^property

¶25

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the applicants availed credit facility of Rs.1,53,75,000/- from the respondent in January, 2017. Though they submitted ECS NACH forms and instructions multiple times to deduct the^{ElvlIs the} respondent failed to do effect the same. It increased interest rate from 10.5yo to 12olo beyond the sanctloned terms. In fact, RBI reduced rate of interest to 8olo. Without implementing the RBI circulars and despite a lot of correspondence and^personal visits, respondent did not reduce the rate of interest.^The applicants^paid back a substantial amount of Rs.1,55,09,159/- against^{the sanctioned} loan, after paying 68 Elvlls, the amount due comes^to Rs.1,09,19,036/- even as per respondent statement^dated 74.09.2022. Applicants issued a notice on^7A.09.2022 along^with demand draft for Rs.1 crores, with a^request to^{calculateinterest} @10.5olo and^8olo. Though^{respondent informed aboutreversalof} interest by 1.5% the same was not reflected in the^{dues amount.} Respondent issued loan recall notice 18.04.2023^informing commencement of arbltration^proceedings. As^per audit^statement obtained by the applicants, the outstanding^{is only Rs.9,11,018/-.As} on date applicants^{paid Rs.2,22,05,558/-againstloan sanctionof} Rs.1,53,75,000/- despite which the^{respondent issued notice.} Aggrieved by the act, applicants^{filed OS No.516of 2023on the file of} learned XI Junior Clvil Judge,^CCC at^{Secunderabadalong withIAs for} temporary/permanent injunctions,^{directionto acceptRs.9,11,018/-} towards foreclosure,^restrain from^{invokingarbitrationproceedings,} stop effecting ECS etc.^{Respondentreceived summonsin the OS.} While so, the respondent^{issued demand notice da-ted29.06.2023 uls}

¶26

,,fit',sa".9 /// ';r't'

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

sA No.430/2023

¶29

13(2) of the Act,^{2OO2for Rs.36,09.039/- to which applicantsissued} reply on 18.08.2023^{and respondent not acceptedthe objectionsvide} reply dated 06.Og.2023^{followedby possessionnotice dated} 23.09.2023 u/s 13(4) of the^{Act. The accountdoes not come under} the purview of NPA^{nor can the securedasset be classifiedas sub-} standard or doubtful.^{The reply is not as per Sec.13(34)' The} possession notice was neither affixed on^{secured assetnorpublished} in two leading newspapers^{as per Rules8(1) and 8(2) of the Security} Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002 ("Rules"for short). Hence this SA} to set aside the notices and^{award damages.}

¶30

The respondent bank^{filed replystatement along with} documents. The submissions,^{briefly, are that the applicants} defaulted in^payment of^{EMIs as per contractualcommitment as a} result of which account was^{declared as NPA on 11.05 2023 followed} by issuance of demand^notice u/s^{13(2) and possession notice u/s} 13(4) of the Act, 2002. The^{possessionnotice was duly served,} affixed on secured asset and^{published in 'AndhraPrabha' and} 'Financial Express'Telugu and^{English newspapers respectively.The} recovery of public money cannot^{wait indefinitelyto suit the} convenlence of a^particular borrower^{as held by Hon'bleCalcuttaHigh} court in Brahm^(Alloys) Ltd. &^{Anr. vs. West BengalFinancial} Corporation & Ors. The outstanding^{amountas on 06.05.2024was} Rs.lg.ll.475/- which^reflects the^{default.The ECS NACHcouldnot} be effected due to'drawer^{signatured iffers/signatu res do not match'.} Hence notices were sent on 76.03.2077,^{!2.04.2OL7and 20.07.2017} to applicant to register the^{ECSdespite which the applicants failed to} do execute fresh^{mandate. The NEFT payments weremade due to} that reason. The additional rate of^{interestof 1'5Vo was applied as} agreed vide clause 15 of the^{loan agreement horyeverrefundof}

Page 4 ofs

SA No.430/2023

Rs.11,88,874l- was made as^{a goodwill gesture' The amountof Rs.1} crores was accepted^{towards part-payment and samewas informed} to applicants. The^calculation of^{applicantsis not as per agreedloan} terms and hence incorrect.^{Pendingthe OS the applicants approached} this Tribunal with same allegations.^{SA is liable to be dismissed.}

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the^{applicantsas well as learned} counsel for the respondent^{Perusedthe written argumentsfiled for} the appllcants and also documents^{brought on record.}

¶36

During the course of arguments,^{learned counsel for the} applicant whlle reiterating the^{contents of the application,further'} contended that the applicants are^{ready to settlethe matterby} paying due amount of Rs.4,80,946/-. The officials of^{the respondent} recently demanded to^{pay Rs.20lakhs to settle the account whereas} appllcants agreed to^{payRs.5lakhs.He souqht to allow the SA'}

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent^{would also reiteratethe} submissions made in the reply^{statement and furtheraffirmed that} the respondent has followed^{the due procedureas contemplated} under the Act and^{Rulesframed thereunderwhile proceeding against} the mortgaged^{property hence SA is liableto be dismissed.}

¶38

The^points for consideration^{are as follows :} -

¶39

i) Whether the applicants^{have madeout any valid ground} to set aside the^{possession notice dated23.09'2023} issued u/s 1i(4) of the Act, 2002^{as prayed for?}

¶40

ii) To what relief?

¶41

Point Nos.(i):

¶42

Admittedly the applicants^{invoked the jurisdictionof the learned} Civil Court by filing OA^{No.516/2023on the same groundsas raised} in this SA with regard to^{non-effectingof ECS/NACH,charging of}

Ow,o

Page 5 of 5

sA No.430/2023

higher rate of interest, substantial^{repayment,outstanding due} amount, settlement of^{accountetc. It is clear that these issues are} sub-judice on the file of^{learnedJuniorCivil Judge, CCC at} Secunderabad and^hence I am^{not inclined to enquire into any of} these issues.

¶47

As far as Securitization^{proceedings are concerned, admittedly} the applicants received the^{demandnoticedated29.06.2023and} issued reply/objections dated^{18'08.2023 to which the respondent} also issued reply dated 06'09.2023.^{In find no fault with the} respondent in complying Secs'13(2),^{13(3A),13(4) of the Act, 2002} orthe Rules 8(1) and B(2)^{of the Rules, 2002' The applicants failed to} make out any valid^ground to^{set aside the possessionnoticeand} accordingly application^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶48

Point No.(ii):

¶49

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed,

¶50

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,} shall stand closed. No order as to^{costs. Communicatea copy of this} order to the^parties concerned^{and uploadin the officialwebsite.}

¶51

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond^pronounced by^{mein the opencourt on this} the 22'd August,2o25). ^^A

¶52

^^A /y'1xttry4.-et! (/''o'"

¶53

(RAFfESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ski Metal Craft v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ski Metal Craft v. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

Akepongu Chinna Edanna versus Canara Bank

Ms Lakshmi Bham Bham Baba Medical and General Sores versus State Bank of India

Sri vijaykumar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Swathi Dental Manufacturer

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mohammadmahdi Kelidari