Allowed

R%20RAMANJINAMMA v. Tadipatri Coop Town Bank Ltd.

DRT20 Feb 2025SA/525/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to quash proceedings initiated by the bank, including the possession notice, after rejecting the bank's arguments and awarding costs to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was allowed by quashing the possession notice dated 01.11.2023 and all other measures initiated under the Act. The respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to

R%20RAMANJINAMMA versus Tadipatri Coop Town Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

-^{DATED THIS THE 2O-lH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAI\4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB.^{(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 525 OF 2023

¶5

Smt. R. Ramanjinamma W/o Mr. R. Sreenivasulu Occ:House Wife Aged about 45 years R/o D. No.2/1 19, Harijanavada Tadipatri, Ananthapur, A. P.

¶6

.....,..Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorized Officer The Tadipatri Co-op Town Bank Ltd Tadipatri, No.D 455, 1st Floor Municipal Complex Main Road Tadipatri, Ananthapuram Andhra Pradesh-515411

¶9

The Chief Manager The Tadipatri Co-op Town Bank Ltd Tadipatri, No.D 455, 1st Floor Municipal Complex Main Road Tadipatri, Anantha puram Andhra Pradesh-515411

¶10

....... Respondents.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. l. Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Ex Parte

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The present Securitization Application is filed by the^Applicant u/s.t7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^("Act" in short) to^{set quash} all the^proceedings including^possession notice dated 01.11.2023,^to declare respondent are not entitled to^proceed against the^application schedule property under the erovisionsfilY:t and to order^for costs. U^rfr,o--

¶14

5A.No.525/202i

¶15

The case of the applicant,^{in brief, is that she is the absolute} owner of the application^{schedule propertyand she availed loanof} Rs,1,00,000/- from respondent by^{mortgagingthe property in the year} 2017. fil Covid^{pandemicshe was regularly payingthe instalments.} She got affected with^{Corona virus and is still having after affects. So} far an amount of Rs.2^{lakhs was paid. The respondentnever issued} statement of account or^{receipts despite several requests. Classification} of account itself is^{bad in law. The respondent has not serveddemand} notice or^possession notice,^{neitheraffixed nor published the possession} notice thereby violated^Rules 3, 8(1)^{and B(2) of Security Interest} (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter)'^{Hencethis SA.}

¶16

The respondents 1 and 2^{entered appearancethrough their} counsel Ms. A. Vijaya Lakshmi, did^{not chooseeither to file counter in} lA 3925/2023 nor reply statement^{in the main SA. Accordingly, the} right to file opposition was^{forfeited vide docketorderdated} 30.t0.2024.

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing^{for the applicantandperused} the material brought on record.^Right of^{respondentadvancing} arguments was forfeited^{vide docket order dated 07.02.2025.}

¶18

During the course of arguments,^{learned counsel for applicant} reiterated the version as in the application^{and prayedto allowthe SA} with costs. .

¶19

As stated supra, there is no representation^{for the respondent} bank though made appearance through^{an advocate and as such, no} proof is available to contradict the contentions of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the contentions^{remainuncftlllengedand} unrebutted and accordingly SA deserves to be utlo*uflffi1;b

¶20

SA.No.52s/2023

¶21

The applicant runs a small scale kirana shop who had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, reportedly she repaid Rs.2,00,000/- so far and still an amount of Rs.1,76,954/- is shown in the possession notice. The applicant entered into litigation pursuant to action initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Having dragged the applicant into litigation, the respondent would have the onus to answer the issues raised by the applicant. In the absence of which, it has to be construed that such action was unnecessary. Since the applicant had to incur expenses towards litigation at the instance of the respondent I deem it^just and proper to compensate the expenses by way of imposing costs on respondent,

¶22

B. In the result, the SA is allowed by quashing all the measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Act, 2002 in respect of SA schedule property including possession notice dated 01.11.2023.

¶23

The respondent is hereby directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/(Twenty Five Thousand only) to the applicant.

¶24

Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concernedand} upload in the official website

¶26

(Dictated to the Steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of February,2025). ffi*c

¶27

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

R%20RAMANJINAMMA v. Tadipatri Coop Town Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R%20RAMANJINAMMA v. Tadipatri Coop Town 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

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