Dismissed

Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

DRAT10 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the borrower's challenge to a Securitization Application and the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The bench upheld the lower court's finding that the bank followed legal procedures and the appeal lacked merit, affirming the order on interest rate challenges.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the DRT are affirmed.

Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 73 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 73 of 2024

¶5

(Arising out of S.A. 304 of 2021 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶7

Miss Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o Brahmaji Rao, Resident of Flat No. 302, Sita Rama Residency, Near Krishna College, Visakhapatnam, Presently resident of Door No. 55-7-22, Sanjayagandhi Colony, Opposite: Dobikhana, HB Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 022.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The Branch Manager, AP Grameena Vikash Bank, Having its branch at Door No.1 55-15-1, MIG-44, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 022.

¶11

… Respondent Counsel for Appellants … Mr. T. Jeevan (Virtual) Counsel for Respondents … Mr. Swarup Banerjee Mr. Hari Charan Yadav JUDGMENT : 10^th July, 2025

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶13

1. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 5.10.2023, passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam in S.A. 304 of 2023 (Miss Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi -vs- A.P. Grameena Vikash Bank) dismissing the same. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, Appellant preferred the appeal.

¶14

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

3. As per pleadings of the parties admittedly Appellant is the Borrower who has availed Housing Loan of Rs.15.00 lac from the Respondent Bank. Documents were executed on 11.11.2016 but the repayment of the loan became irregular and the account was classified as N.P.A. Thereafter, notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 23^rd October, 2017.

¶16

¶17

Appeal No. 73 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶18

Possession Notice dated 4.01.2018 which was duly served and published in accordance with rules and law. Auction Sale Notice was issued on 7.10.2020. Thereafter, another Auction Sale Notice was issued on 15^th February, 2022 fixing the sale on 18.3.2022 but sale could not be conducted. It is submitted that the Bank has taken over possession.

¶19

4. Appellant herein preferred Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act challenging the order dated 3.3.2021 passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam.

¶20

5. Respondent Bank filed opposition stating that all the measures, as required under the Securitization Act, have been taken. Account became irregular and was classified as N.P.A. Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act were duly issued, served and published. Possession was taken in accordance with the order passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶21

6. Learned DRT, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, recorded a finding that there is no irregularity in issuance of the notices or the steps taken by the Bank wherein all the procedures required under the law was followed. Accordingly placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CELIR LPP -vsBafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Others [(2024 2 SCC 1] , Learned DRT rejected the Securitization Application.

¶22

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that Appellant is the Borrower who has made all the payments. It is submitted that no amount is due. However, interest charged by the Bank is excessive. This is the only point raised before me by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

¶23

8. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that all the payments made by the Appellant herein were duly adjusted which finds place in the Statement of Account. Interest was also charged and calculated in accordance with the Sanction Letter. No

¶24

¶25

Appeal No. 73 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata representation, under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, was made by the Appellant. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and no illegality was alleged or proved by the Appellant herein. Securitization Application is preferred on vague grounds.

¶26

9. Perusal of the Securitization Application itself reflects that although the order, passed by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 3.3.2021, is challenged by the Appellant herein but in the grounds no ground challenging Section 14 order was taken by the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is Borrower. It is also not in dispute that all the payments made by the Appellant finds place in the Statement of Account. It is also not in dispute that the procedure followed by the Bank is in accordance with the law. The only challenge is regarding the interest rates.

¶27

10. Perusal of the Statement of Account reflects that the interest was calculated and charged as per the Sanction Letter and Agreement arrived at between the parties.

¶28

11. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and DRT has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Bafna Motors (supra) wherein in paragraph 88 it was held that:

¶29

“88. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that as per the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished/waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002.”

¶30

12. Accordingly, appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that Appellant wants to make payment to the Bank as claimed. It is expected that if any such proposal is made by the Appellant, Bank may consider the same in accordance with law.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

¶33

Appeal No. 73 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2023, passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam dismissing S.A. 304 of 2023 (Miss Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi -vs- A.P. Grameena Vikash Bank), is affirmed.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents

¶36

and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶37

File be consigned to Record room.

¶38

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶39

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson