Dismissed

G Ghanshyam v. Navabharat Coop Urban Bank Limited

DRT24 Mar 2026SA/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenging enforcement actions under SARFAESI Act sought dismissal citing limitation and defective notices regarding a deceased mortgagor. Court held part-payment revived limitation period and notices to legal heirs were valid. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application failed and was dismissed. Interlocutory Applications, if any, to be closed.

G Ghanshyam versus Navabharat Coop Urban Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL.E AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{24THDAYOF MARCH,2026}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.73OF 2023}

¶5

Sri G. Ghanshyam Son of late G.L.^NaraYana Aged about 54 Years,^Occ;Business Re/o of H. No.^{7 1 -3-80,Ma ha moodguda} Sitafulmandi secunderabad 500061

¶6

sri G Anand Son of late G.L.^NaraYana Aged about 54^years, Occ;Business Re/o of H. No.^{1 1 -3-80,Ma ha moodguda} Sitafulmandi, Secunderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁶¹

¶7

.......Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Navabharat Co-op. Urban^{Bank Ltd} Rep by its Authorized Officer/Branch^Manager 1-19-72/12/101, Plot No.12, Brindavan^Colony Dr.A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad^{500 062}

¶10

.. ....Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. J. Narendra Kumar

¶12

Counsel for Respondent

¶13

: Mr. P. Balaji

¶14

: CLB-D-E-B:-

¶15

Applicants filed the^present Securitisation^{Application uls 77 ot} the Securitization and Reconstruction of^{Financial Assets and} Enforcement of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 (hereinafterreferredto as} "Act, 2002") assaiting the measures of^{the respondent against SA} schedure properties under secs.13(4r,^ilWi:;:ssession^vide

¶16

2 of5

¶17

SA N0.7312023

¶18

Advocate Commissioner notice dated 1,4.02.2023 in Crl. l.4.p. No.76/2023 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶19

2- The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they are legal heirs of alleged mortgagor late G.L. Narayana who died on 29.72.2012; they are absolute owners and possessors of the application schedule properties. The respondent obtained certificate in Case No.9/2008 dated 25.06.2009 issued by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (West) Division, Ranga Reddy District u/s 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 for an amount of Rs.6,75,614/- with interest @20olo p.a. from 01.03.2008 till date of realization against I\4r.G.1. Narayana but failed to execute the same. Suppressing the fact, respondent initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act claiming Rs.t,7,g7 A42/_ and issued sale notice with reserve price of Rs.50.64 lakhs which bad in law. The claim is barred by limitation as per Sec.36 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The limitation period to execute any decree is twelve years as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Hence this SA.

¶20

The respondent bank filed reply statement submitting, mteralia, that Mr.G.L. Narayana and applicants availed loan from the respondent bank against mortgage of the application schedule properties and the charge has been registered with CERSAI. The account of applicants was classified as NpA as per RBI guidelines and a Certificate was issued under Sec.71 of the TCS Act, 1964 on 25.06.2009. Subsequently the 1st applicant paid an amount of Rs.24,500/- on 03.07.2013. Demand notice u/s 13(2) was issued on 02.04.20L8 which was acknowledged on 25.05.2018. possession notice was issued on 05.11.2018, sent by post to applicants and published on 07.11.2018. Thereafter action has been taken under ,rXwa,.,.{, / / at 'f ^.2. /.(^o

¶21

3of5

¶22

5A N0.7312023

¶23

Sec.14 to take^{physical possessionby approaching learned CMM.The} measures of the respondent are within limitation.^{There is no} prohibition to enforce the security. Hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and^{learned counsel} for the respondent. Perused the written arguments^{filed by the} applicants and the material brought^{on record.}

¶25

Learned counset for the^{applicants reiteratedthe version that} having obtained certificate in^{Case No.9/08 dated 25.06.2009 the} respondent failed to execute the^{sameand hence enforcement of} security interest under the^{SARFAESI Act is barredby limitation as} per Sec.36 of SARFAESI Act as well as Article¹³⁶ of^{the Limitation} Act. Notices against a^{dead person are bad in law and hence all the} measuTes are liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the^{respondentbank would submit that} there is no^prohibition to^{enforce the security. The 1st applicant paid} an amount of Rs.24,500/-^{on 03.07.2013and hence the fresh} Iimitation^period of^{twelve years commences fromthe date of part-} payment. He relied on the documents^{filed alongwith reply statement} as proof oF^{part-payment and complianceof provisions of the Act,} 2002. He added that^{the action taken by the respondentbankis} absolutely within limitation^{periodand as per entitlement of the} respondent bank.^{With these submissions, learned counsel sought for} dismissal of the^{SA with exemplarycosts.}

¶27

The^points for^{consideration are as follows : -}

¶28

(i) whether the Applicant made^{out an!valid.} ground for interdicting the^{proceedings of} respondent bank u/s¹⁴ of^{theSARFA.ESI Act for}

///Yu"* o/

4of5

SA No.7312023

taking the physical possession of the SA schedule property?

¶33

(ii) To what relief?

¶34

Point No.^(i):

¶35

The main contention of the applicants is that the claim of the respondent bank is barred by limitation considering the Certificate dated 25.06.2009 obtained uls 77 of the APCS Act, 1964. The respondent bank filed statement of account along with reply statement which evidences part-payment of Rs.24,5OO/_ on 03.07.2013 by the applicant. The applicants have neither disputed the document nor denied such payment. It is setued law that part_ payment gives a fresh lease of limitation. The demand notice was issued on 02.04.2018. Hence the action of the respondent bank for enforcement of security interest is well within limitauon.

¶36

Respondent bank also filed documents evidencing service of demand notice and possession notice and affixture and publication. None of the documents is disputed by the applicants. I fjnd no infraction of provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder as far as demand notice and possession notice are concerned.

¶37

The notices under the SARFAESI Act have been issued to the applicants in their capacity being borrowers. The name of Mr. G.L. Narayana, appear in the notices in his capacity being guarantor and mortgagor to the loan. Admittedly, the applicants are legal heirs of late G.L. Narayana. Had the notices been issued only in the name of a dead person, they would have been proved to be bad in law. In the instant case, the applicants are on one hand_ main borrowers who

fuo*\

5 of 5

sA No.7312023

received the notices and legal heirs of^{late G'L. Narayana, on the} other hand. Hence the^{contentionof issuing notices in the name of a} dead^person is meritless.

¶42

Being secured creditor, the^{respondentbank is entitledunder} Sec.14 of the Act, 2OO2 to^{take physical possession of securedassets,} and said action cannot^{be interdictedwithoutany valid ground'}

¶43

t2. In view of the above^{observations,it is held that the applicants} failed to make out valid^{grounds to set aside any of the measuresof} the respondent bank against^{the SA schedule properties.Accordingly,} the SA is liable to be^dismissed'

¶44

Point No,(ii):

¶45

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶46

t4. Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed. No order as to^{costs. Communicate a copy of this order} to the^parties concerned and^{uploadin official WebPortal.}

¶47

(Typed ro my dictation by the PS, corrected,^{signedand pronouncedby me in theopen} L'ourt on lhis the 21'o^{dayol March,2026).}

¶48

K"+'*

¶49

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

G Ghanshyam v. Navabharat Coop Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Ghanshyam v. Navabharat Coop Urban Bank 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Shailesh Kumar Gujjar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.