The DRT held that the Applicant was estopped from challenging the Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act, following the dismissal of the Applicant's previous application, which had contested the validity of the demand and possession notices.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad Bench, presided over by Mr. Gummadi Gopichand, addressed an SA filed by the borrower and held that the Applicant was estopped from challenging the validity of the demand and possession notices, as they had been previously contested and dismissed in an earlier Securitization Application. The Tribunal found no merit in the challenge to the Sale Notice, which had been issued and served in compliance with the SARFAESI Act, leading to the dismissal of the application.
The Applicant filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Sale Notice dated 22.10.2022 issued by the Respondent Corporation, which fixed the date of auction for 30.11.2022 in respect of the scheduled property. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had failed to issue the required demand, possession, and sale notices as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and its Rules, and also failed to publish or affix the notices on the property. The Applicant became aware of the sale only on 25.11.2022, which prompted the filing of the Securitization Application (SA).
In response, the Respondent Corporation denied the allegations, asserting that the Applicant had defaulted on the housing loan secured by mortgaging the scheduled property. As a result, the loan account was classified as NPA, and the Respondent issued the necessary demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in 2017, followed by a possession notice in May 2017, which was affixed to the property and published in two daily newspapers. The Applicant's earlier challenge to the demand and possession notices in SA 233/2017 had been dismissed, barring the Applicant from raising these issues again. The Respondent further argued that the Sale Notice of 22.10.2022 had been duly served, affixed to the property, and published in newspapers, in compliance with the SARFAESI Act. However, the auction scheduled for 30.11.2022 was stayed by the Tribunal, rendering the SA infructuous.
After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant could not challenge the validity of the Sale Notice as the same had been properly issued and served according to the legal requirements. Additionally, since the auction did not occur due to the stay, the SA became infructuous. The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant's claim and dismissed the Securitization Application, along with any pending interlocutory applications.
Mr. D. Raghavulu, Advocate represented the Applicant-Borrower.
Mr. B. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate appeared for the Defendant.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comentários