Dismissed

Syed Nasir Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Feb 2025SA/79/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a Sale Notice issued without a prior possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that since the auction was stayed and cancelled, the objections were infructuous, but directed the Bank to follow prescribed procedures before a fresh attempt. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Respondent Bank directed to follow prescribed procedure under SARFAESI Act and Rules for fresh auction steps.

Syed Nasir Hussain and another versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2C/25

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.79/2C23

¶4

l .Mr.SyedNasir Hussain, S/o Syed Munawar Hussain,

¶5

Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o Plot No.67, Adarshnagar, Zaheerabad, Medak-5O222O.

¶6

Smt. ShaikGulzar Begum, W/o Syed Nasir Hussain, Aged 42years, Occ:house wife. R/o Plot No.67, Adarshnagar, Zaheerabad, Medak-5O222O.

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

State Bank of Baroda, SARB, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶10

Respondent Bank

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants

¶12

Counsel for the Respond.ent Bank

¶13

Sn f. Vijag Kumar Sn P. V. SatganaraAana

¶14

:ORDER:-

¶15

This application is filed by the Appricants u/s.17 0f the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging ,$sr Sale Notice* dt.3 t.Ot.2023 lixing the auction of the n 15.03.2023 and to declare the same as illegal

¶16

lP E * 2. 'l'he averme r[6&flffi&, brief, are that:

¶17

The Applicants availed housing loan Lo a tune of Rs.2s lakhs in the year 2ors and a top up loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs in 2016 from the Respondent Bank. Due to covid-19, the Applicants could not pay some instalments so, the loan account was classified as NpA by the Respondent Bank and the Bank issued demand notice o1.06.2022 to the Applicants' Thereafter without issuing possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, the Respondent Bank straightaway issued Sale Notice dt.31 .or.2o23 for conducting auction of the schedule property and the said sale notice was not served on the Applicants nor published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

3' The Respondent Bank filed their Reply Statement denying a, the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicants having availed housing loan from the Respondent Bank, committed default in making repayment. of loan amounts due and so, the loan account was classified as NpA and the Bank issued demand notice dt.01.06.2022 uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice was received by the Applicants. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.11 .og.2022 to the Applicants and the said notice was dury served on the Appricants and the said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers and it was also affixed on the schedure property. Thereafter on 31.01 .2o2g, the Respondent Bank issued sale notice fixing the date of auction of the schedure property on 1s.o3.2o23 and the said notice was dury served on the Applicants and also published in two reading newspapers and the same was also affixed on the schedure property. But in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal, the proposed auction has been cancelled and so the relief claimed in the sA becomes

¶19

.-. h infructuous. aq#NLpDo^^^-r Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA. ,{"rf;^--E

¶20

Heard Ld, Sounr s and Ld. Counsel for Respondent **J3g;-3"J:ffiryffi1 ught on record.

¶21

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶22

il wlether the Applicants haue established. ang ualid" ground.s for challenging the Auction sale Notice d.t.31.01.2023 issued" bg the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property?

¶23

it) To what relieJ?

¶24

Potnt No.(i):-

¶25

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

¶26

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed housing loan and top up loan from the Respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent Bank issued demand notice to the Appricants and the same was received by the Applicants.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent Bank without issuing possession notice, straightaway issued e Auction Sale Notice dt.31.ot.2o23 and so, the said sale notice is not valid and liable to be set aside.

¶28

As per the Reply filed by the Bank, it is clear that the auction as ro sed by the Respondent Bank on 15.03.2023 in pursuance of Akfr. 'i& 2 Pflfh ffixneCGfi^{to tat<e fresh steps for} conducting auction of the i schedule H"#P So, suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent 3

¶29

¶30

Bank to follow the prescribed procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking fresh steps for conducting auction of the schedule property. so, in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the SA is liable to be dismissed as the relief claimed in the sA becomes infructuous.

¶31

Point No.(ii):-

¶32

In the result, the present Securitizatron Application is dismissed as there are no merits. In the circumstances, the Respondent Bank is directed to follow the prescribed procedure as laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking fresh steps for conducting auction of the schedule property.

¶33

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

¶34

7'.2. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dtctated to the P.S transcibed by her, corrected, signed and. pronounced by me in the open court on thb the dag of February, 2025).

¶36

sd/(G. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

TEUECOPN, Il/.9-{';lir ---11'" bt Regfrtnr DRr.I, HYDERABAO.

Syed Nasir Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Nasir Hussain and another v. State Bank of India

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Momin Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Dayakar Transport

Sri Gugloth Ramesh versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Niharika Malapati

M S Sri Laxmi Priya Cotex versus Union Bank of India

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India