Dismissed

V Satya Prasad Akula and Others v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

DRT20 Feb 2025SA/509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal II at Hyderabad dismissed an application challenging a Rule 8(6) sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that since the scheduled auction did not materialize, the application became infructuous. Furthermore, it found the applicant's claim that statutory notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were missing was unsubstantiated as the bank had complied with due p

What did the court decide?

Impugned Rule 8(6) sale notice is confirmed; application is dismissed as infructuous.

V Satya Prasad Akula and Others versus Iifl Home… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATIoN No. 509 oF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Shri Satya Prasad Akula S/o Venkata Satyanarayana Aged: 54, Occ: Business

¶7

Tha lli G rowers, H, No. 1 - 10-gB J I Nagar Colony, Lane-6 Tem ple Alwa l, Secu ndera bad Telangana-500062.

¶8

Shri lyothi Akuta

¶9

W/o V. Satya Prasad Akula

¶10

Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife

¶11

H. No. 10- 110

¶12

Akula vari Group, Moripodu Sakhinatipa i Mandal Sa n ka ragu pta m, East Godava ri And h ra Pradesh^- 5332 50.

¶13

M/s. Thalli Growers - Rep. By Shri Satya Prasad Akula H.No. 1-10-88, I J Nagar Colony,

¶14

Lane-6, Temple Alwal Secunderabad,Telangana-500062. .......4pp|icants.

¶15

And

¶16

IIFL Home Finance Limited Rep by its Authorlsed Officer Corporate Office, Plot No.98 Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV cua rgaon- 122 o1s. ,}.,.tr_-->r

¶17

sa 509l2023

¶18

Also at:

¶19

IIFL Home Finance^Limited Rep by its Authorised^Officer Branch Office, 5-9^-22 /^{Bl 501} sth Floor, My^{Home SarovarPlaza} Secretariat^{Road, HYderabad-4.}

¶20

.. ..Respondents.

¶21

Counsel for the^Ap?licants : Mr. G.L. Prasada Rao. Counsel for the^Resqondent : Mr. N.P. Sudarshan.

¶22

-: q8!l-E r-

¶23

The Applicants filed^{the present Securitisation Application u/s.17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of Financlal Assetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafterreferred} to as "SARFAESI Act^{2002")assailing the Rule 8(6) sale notice} dated 16.11.2023 for sale of SA schedule^property through^e- auction on Lt.f2.2023.

¶24

The case of the applicants as per the averments of securitisation applicatlon, in brief, is that applicants are the borrowers/coborrowers and they availed a loan of Rs.1.60 crores for purchase of Plot by creating equitable mortgage over the said property. Despite applicants depositing several instalments, respondent issued the impugned rule 8(6) notice without any prior notices under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In case respondent succeeds in proceeding with the proposed auction sale on 11.12.2023, applicants would be put to irreparable loss and grave injustice thereby losing a valuable y' 'flln$'l^aYct")li'-

¶25

sA sogl2o23

¶26

property. Applicants already paid an upfront amount of Rs.17.88 lakhs settled under OTS.

¶27

The respondent filed reply statement. The averments ln the reply statement in brief are that applicants became irregular in repayment. Applicants could not adhere to the payment schedule envisaged under OTS. Respondent issued demand notice on 20.72.?018 and the same has been sent to the applicants by registered post; the postal receipts/track reports are annexed to the counter in the 1A37 42/202 3. The demand notice has been published in two newspapers on 28.12,2018. Whereas the possession notice dated 25.03.2019 has been sent to the applicants by registered post, the postal receipts and track reports are annexed to the counter in 1A.374?/2023.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, while reiterating the averments in the SA, pleaded for allowing the Application in the interest of^justice.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since the very auction sale scheduled on 11.12.2023 pursuant to the impugned sale notice did not materialise, the SA becomes infructuous as the respondent strictly complied with the issuance of demand notice u/s 13(2) and^possession notice u/s 13(4) as per the materjal^papers annexed to the counter in 1A.374212023 ot the ,Alru:\v-q

¶31

sA 5O9/2023

¶32

Now the points that arise for adjudication are: -

¶33

llhether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing^the Rule 8(6) notice issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of Securitisation Act?

¶34

ii) To what relieJ?

¶35

Point No.(i)t

¶36

a Applicant filed the^present SA challenging the rule 8(6)^notice dated 16.11.2023 fixing the auction date of schedule^propertyon 11.12.2023. As the auction scheduled on I1.t2.2023^pursuant to the impugned sale notice did not materialise, the SA as to the sale notice under challenge becomes infructuous.

¶37

The grounds urged in the SA for setting aside the impugned sale notice, as brought out in 5(2) averments in the SA are "Respondent Company has not issued 13(2) and 13(4) Notices and without issuing said notices and without following procedure directly issued E-Auction Notice". In its reply statement, respondent Company submitted that it issued demand notice on 20.12.20L8 and that the said demand notice has been sent by registered post to the applicants. As notices sent to some addresses have been returned unserved, respondent published the demand notice in Andhra Prabha and Business Standard newspapers, photostat copies of which are placed at pages 58 to 67 to the counter in the IA.3742/2023. Respondent Company placed Photostat copies of possession notice dated 25.03.2019, postal receipts of the notice sent ,M,*$by registered post, paper ,//-:Ar-

¶38

sA s09/2023

¶39

publication in two newspapers vide pages 6g to 7g annexed to the counter in tA.3742/2023.

¶40

In the light of the above discussion, I find that the applicants contention as to issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) proved to be unsubstantiated and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Point No.(ii):-

¶42

In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶43

L2. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on Web Portal

¶45

(Dictoted to the steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th doy of Februory, 2025)

¶46

ffi"s'>

¶47

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

V Satya Prasad Akula and Others v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Satya Prasad Akula and Others v. Iifl Home Finance 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

Chavasuresh Babu versus Union Bank of India

Smt Putha Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Industries.

Union Bank of India versus Dakireddy Buchi Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Vardhini Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr.Massa @ Masa Srinivas