Dismissed

P Peddi Reddy v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT29 Apr 2025SA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, including an auction notice and possession proceedings. The DT admitted default but noted the e-auction failed to materialize after numerous adjournments due to lack of applicant readiness.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous pending interlocutory applications closed.

P Peddi Reddy versus Karur Vysya Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitlzation Application No.102 OF 2022

¶5

Sri P. Peddi Reddy

¶6

S/o Sri Late Peddi Reddy Aged 50 years, Occ:Business D.No.1B-1-95, Near S.V. Theatre Venugopala Nagar, Ananthapur District.

¶7

P. Gowthami

¶8

W/o Sri P. Peddi Reddy Aged 44 years, Occ:Business D.No.1B-1-95, Near S.V. Theatre Venugopala Nagar, Ananthapur District.

¶9

.......Applicants.

¶10

VersuS

¶11

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Ananthapur Branch Rep by its Authorized Officer Ananthapur Dist.

¶12

....Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : Ms. G.Poornima Rao

¶14

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr.Lanka Jagannadham

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation Application uls⁷⁷ of the Securitization and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(hereinafterreferredto as} "the Act") to set aside all the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, including sale^{notice dated 2.02.2022 fixing} auction of application schedule^property on 24.03.2022^{and proposed} action to take physical^possession vide advocate^{commissionernotice} in Crl.MP No.6B of 2022 on the file of learned CIM-Cum-Prl.^Asst. Sesslons Judge, Anantapur. ffi.o**

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

SANo.tOZ/2022

¶19

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that the applicants as Managing Partners of M/s sai Agri corporation availed two loan facilities for business purpose and arso guarantors. They erosed one account of Rs.2 crores and made substantiar payment tiil september, 2021. Due to rosses in business and covid-1g pandemic, appricants committed defaurt in payment resurting in crassification of roan account as NpA. The applicant resigned as Managing partner and now firm is represented by Mr p. Ramadas Reddy. The applicants filed Wp No.28365 of 202I before Hon,ble High Court at Amaravathi wherein commissioner of Agriculture was directed to release more than Rs'1'65 crores to the appricant. without granting moratorium as per RBI guidelines, without appreciating the difficulties and without following Rules 8(1) and B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules ("Rures" hereinafter for short), respondent bank demanded physical possession vide proceedings in crl.Mp No.6g /2022 and also issued impugned e-auction sale notice. Hence this SA.

¶20

3' The right of appricants advancing arguments was forfeited on 08'04'2025. Learned counser for the respondent stated that the e- auction sare of the apprication schedure property schedured on various dates did not materiarize and hence the sA has become infructuous.

¶21

The points for consideration are as follows : _ i) Whether the applicant made out any vatid ground to quash the measures initiated by the responde;t ag;i;;t the SA schedule property?

¶22

ii) ro what retiep 0W€

Page 3 of 3

SA No.L02/2o22

Point No.(i):

Admittedly, the applicants availed credit facilities against mortgage of application schedule property and committed default in payment. This SA was once dismissed for default. On application, it has been restored to file. After taking number of adjournments from 06.72.2024 onwards, it was reported still on 08.04.2025 by^a representative of the learned counsel for applicants as not ready for arguments as not^prepared. Applicants have not evinced any interest even after reopening the case. However, the e-auction sale in respect of secured asset did not materialize and hence the SA is liable to be dism issed as infructuous.

¶27

Point No.(ii):

¶28

In the result, the Securitization Application is hereby dismissed as infructuous.

¶29

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending, if any,^shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶30

B. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned^and upload in the official website.

¶31

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2g'h day of April, 2025).

¶32

.!q"'F

¶33

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

P Peddi Reddy v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Peddi Reddy v. Karur Vysya Bank

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

Shaik Shafiulla versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Sri Syed Aslam Hussain

State Bank of India versus M/S Kesava Travels

Canara Bank versus M/S Pattela Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms.Mude Rajeshwari

Sri Santosh Kumar Gumpanpally versus Indian Overseas Bank