Dismissed

Sri Srinivas Pamba v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT26 May 2025SA/55/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special application, applicants challenging a possession notice and proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act failed to prove violations. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the respondent strictly followed statutory notice requirements and validly approached the Magistrate for appointing an advocate commissioner for possession.

What did the court decide?

Special Application SA 55/2023 is dismissed as devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Sri Srinivas Pamba versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company… — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26IH DAY OF MAY. 2O25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.55,/2023

¶5

1.Sri Srinivas Pamba

¶6

S/o Rama Swami,

¶7

Aged 55 years, Occ:business,

¶8

R/o H.No. 10-3- 1 10, Humayrrn Nagar,

¶9

Asif nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶10

2.SriRaj Kumar Pamba,

¶11

S/o Rama Swami,

¶12

Aged 50 years, Occ:business,

¶13

R/o H.No. 10-3-110, Humayun Nagar, Asif nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad

¶14

Smt. PambaNeeraja,

¶15

W/o late Vinod Kumar Pamba,

¶16

Aged 45 years, Occ:business,

¶17

R/o H.No. 10-3-110, Humayun Nagar, Asif nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad

¶18

... Applicants

¶19

And

¶20

Edelweiss Assets Recovery Reconstruction Company Ltd.

¶21

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶22

Situated at Edeleiss House, Office CST Road,Kalina, Mumbai-4O0 098.

¶23

.... Respondent

¶24

Counsel for the Applicants

¶25

Counsel for the 1't Respondent

¶26

Sri D. Raghatrulu Sri Veera Shiua Kumar

¶27

.:ORDER:

¶28

fi1ed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI g the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for

¶29

sA ss/2023

¶30

taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 pursuant to the orders of Ld.vI ACMM, Hyderabad and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶31

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶32

The Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties. Due to covid-19, the Applicants could not repay the loan dues and the loan account was classified as NPA.TheRespondentwithout issuing demand notice, straightaway, issued possession notice and the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule properties.Thereafter, the Respondent approached' ld.vI ACMM,Nampally, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and the advocate commissioner appointed by the td.vl ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad is trying to take physical possession of the schedule properties. Hence the SA.

¶33

The Respondentfiled Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicants in repaying the loan dues, the 1oan account was classified as NPA and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.08.1r.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 demanding to pay the amount of Rs.4,45,76,334.51 ps. and the said notice was served on the Applicants. Thereafter, as no amount was paid by the Applicants, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.22.06.2022 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published i, I_ey*? Telangana and Financial Express on 27.06.2022. Therefrff3ltsegqeffit r.:"j:_.......:)- r. approached Ld.VI ACMM, Hyderabad for appfl[1tdrc n t offi vocbtEc"B.qrmi s sioner fo r taking physical po s se s sion of /fh6'scheduky',{tir8F.chedu# p r. op er&shr .i$l'fu, fi tl ing cC rl.M .p.N .p.No.so.S 9 sl2022 Sl2022 and the 2 E i{AY &5 -:. L ,'*1 // 2

¶34

sA ssl2023

¶35

advocate commissioner appointed by Ld.VI ACMM, Hyderabad issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule properties. Challenging the said sale notice, the present SA is filed. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and there are no deviations. Hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counser for Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶37

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶38

Whether tlte Applicants haue established ang ualid. ground"s for challenging the proceedings initiated bg tlLe Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.VI ACMM, Nampallg, Hgderabad?

¶39

ii) To what relieJ?

¶40

Polnt No.lll:-

¶41

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

¶42

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appricants availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the sc$Urlg,,prop.*eJties and thereafter committed default in repaying the -d.ues. t SA is filed when the Respondent initiated

¶43

,.S"..Jiiig" ro. physical possession of the schedule property [^{;1 ,',' ''''"-} *

¶44

sA ss/2023

¶45

through advocate commissioner. The receipt of the possession notice issued by the Respondent is not in dispute.

¶46

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2, the Respondent straightaway issued possession notice and the impugned possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule properties nor published in two leading newspapers as contemplated under Rule s(1)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule s, 2OO2.

¶47

Per contra, the Respondent contended that theRespondent has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicants and in taking physical possession of the schedule properties.

¶48

To substantiate their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.08.11.2021 and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments fiIed by the Respondent.After receipt of the said demand notice, the Applicants neither paid any amounts nor submitted any objections to the said notice. So, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.22.06.2022 to the Applicants. Admittedly, the Applicants received the said notice and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties as prescribed under Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2.

¶49

lo NS of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the i{$*\ liberty to approach the concerned District gistra rrief B icial Magistrate for appointment of advocate

¶50

Z 6 a 'IIYffifi sJ^:

¶51

sA55/2023

¶52

commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, after serving possession notice dt.22.o6.2o22, the Respondent approached Ld.vI ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and the Ld.vl ACMM after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propertiesand the advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule properties. The Applicants instead of vacating the schedule premises, filed the present sA.

¶53

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld. vl ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad uls 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule properties are quite legal and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶54

Potnt No.llil:-

¶55

In the result, sA 55/2023 is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶56

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

¶57

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated to the P.s transcribed bg her, corrected., signed and pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 26th dag of May, 2025).

¶59

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

2 6 v,AY T;

¶61

'frwk
,#;';,ff*ffii-

Sri Srinivas Pamba v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas Pamba v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

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

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Siddhi Garments

State Bank of India versus Sri. Nayab Hidayathulla

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Cherith Nehan