The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed this securitisation application filed by borrowers challenging the bank's possession and sale notices under the SARFAESI Act, finding no valid ground to interdict the recovery measures.
Dismissing the securitisation application as liable to fall; interlocutory applications if any stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2025
PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,COM,, L,LB.(HONS.),N4,A. PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATION APPLICAT]ON NO. 93 OF2023
Between:
Occ: Business, Flat No.201
H. No. 5-12-14/201, Plot No.2
Ma ngapu ra m, New Housing
Colony, Meerpet, Block No.12 GHMC Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal,
M edch a l- Ma I kajg i ri D istrict.
Aged about 50years, Occ: Business Flat No.201,2nd Floor, V1ay Arcade H. No. 5-12-14/201, Plot No.2 Ma nga pu ra m, New Housing Colony, Meerpet, Block No.12 GHMC Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, M edch a I- Ma I kajg i ri D i strict.
Nu
And
....Applicants.
sA 93/2O23
2
union Bankof India Rep by itsAuthorised Officer DommaigudaBranch B-57, DommigudaX Road Domi maiguda,Keesara Manda I Hyderabad-500083.
.. ..Res?ondent
: Mr. G.L.PrasadaRao. Counselfor the APPlicants : Mr. B. PraveenKumar. counsel for theRes7ondent
-:q.B-9EB:-
sA 93 / 2023
3
provisions of Chapter-IIl of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank initiated measures under theprovisions of theSARFAESI Act and the Rules thereunder without valid Teasons. In case the respondent is allowed toproceed furtherpursuant to Advocate Commissioner Notice dated L7.02.2023 and sell theproperty pursuant to e-auction sale notice dated 27.07.2023, the applicants would suffer irreparable loss andheavy damage.
sA 9312(J23
4
filed withfA.235612024.The respondentbank approached the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate to take physicalpossessionof the securedpropertyvideCrl'M P No 2512023under Section 14 of the SARFAESIAct. Hencethe measuresinitiated by the respondentbank are neither defective nor illegal Applicants are /M''*
(/Y
sA93/2023
5
trying to thwart the attempts of the respondent in recovering the outstanding dues.
llhether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the measures taken by the respondenl under the provisions of the Section l3(4) and 14 against the SA schedule property under the provisions of Securilisation Act?
i, ll/hat Reliefr
Point No.(i):
B. It is not in dispute that the applicants have availed loan from the respondent bank forpurchase of the SA schedule Flat. It is not the case of applicants that they werepaying theinstalments periodically as agreed upon. On the other hand, it is theplea of the respondent bank that consequent to default in repayment, it proceeded with issuance of demand notice dated 05.11.2019, possession notice dated 20.02.2020, e-auction sale notice dated 06.04.2023. Respondent bank filedproof ofservice ofdemand notice, possession notice and e-auction sale notice onthe applicants by filing requisite materialpapers alongwiththe IA.2356/2024. Despite there being contentions overnon-service of any notices, applicants have notdisputedthe above cited documents relating to service of notices by therespondent.In fact, learned counsel appearing for the applicantsreported no counter and no objection for taking the subjectdocumentson record when IA 2356/2024 was taken up. rw*Accordingto the (,/ -*'
sA 93/2023
6
applicants,the loan is repayableperiodicallyHowever'they did not chooseto place on record the breakupof such periodical payments if any,before thls Tribunalto prove theirbonafidesof repayment ofloan even accordingto their version'suchis the situation, I donot find any flaw on the part of respondentin serving themandatory notice on the applicants-borrowers for recovery ofoutstandingdues.
Point No.(ii):
S/0,,s'%
ESHWARKOTHE) PRESIDINGOFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the measures taken by the respondent under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Act providing for possession and others.
What relief was appropriate in the circumstances.
Whether the applicants failed to prove the bonafides of repayment of loan.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Komminedi Srinivasa Rao
Sri Komminedi Venkata Ramana
Smt. Loya Sirisha Rani
Union Bank of India
Sh. Rameshwar Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
