Dismissed

Pynam Suharlatha v. Union Bank of India

DRT21 Aug 2025SA/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Securitisation Application No. 11 of 2025, the applicant challenged a bank’s attempt to take physical possession of secured property via an Advocate Commissioner notice. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no violation of SARFAESI provisions given established evidence of compliant demand and possession notices.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed and interlocutory applications were closed.

Pynam Suharlatha versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF AUGUST'2025} PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM'L'LB'(HONS')'M'A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION No' 11 OF 2025}

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kum. PYnam^Suharlatha D/o P.S.^Dhanraj Aged about⁵² Years Ftat No.416,^{Hi View A7artments} M ) ColonY,^MoulaAli Opp: ECIL^BusDe7ot Secunderabad-soll4' " " 'Applicant'

¶6

And

¶7

Union Bank^{of India} Rep by its^{Authorised Officer} Asset RecoverY^Branch 249/3 RT,^{lst Floor} MainRoad,SRNagar u|ieruoai-sooos1.

¶8

.... 'Respondent'

¶9

Counsel for^{the Applicant: Mr' D Raghavulu'} Counsel for^{Respondent : M/s Sangeeta Jaiswal&} Assciates.

¶10

-:9-&-9-EB:-

¶11

The Appllcant^{filed the present Securitization Application u/s 17} of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Securlty^{InterestAct, 2002 assailing the action} of respondent bank^{to take the physical possessionof the}

¶12

¶13

SA No.11/2O25

¶14

schedule property pursuant to Advocate Commissioner vacate notice dated 24.72.2024 pursuant to orders in crl M'P' No' 7864/2024 0n the file of the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally.

¶15

The facts of the case as , averred by the applicant in the sA' in brief, are; respondent Rs.16,00,000/- unu,n.,^{'uno sanctioned a housingloan of} mortgage of sA schedule property during the year 2005. a pp, ica nt was u na b,e," rl;il: "l"J,';J l" jjlli] l"i j]l]ll; bank has not renewed the account O"apit" a"qr"rt'to ttut effect. All of a sudden the Advocate Commissioner issued the impugned vacate notice. wrons r y m e n tion"o, ",n "'Jr"r^{ro."ol::::":, :: :i:'#::TJ} ;:: the respondent bank has r 13(4) or the 'ARFAE'T ^:::'T:t^{:::::::"X:"'ff] :::} affixed on the secured asset or published in two leading newspapers. Applicant is ready to regularise the loan account and deposit overdue amounts provided some breathing time is granted. The account is not NpA as per law. Applicant paid substantial amounts in the post possession notice dated 70.70,2024.

¶16

The respondent bank filed reply statement denying the allegations and filed proof of compliance of Sections 13(2), 13(4), Rutes 8(1) and 8(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the Rutes 2002 respectively. It is submitted that the demand notice dated 02.01.2015 sent by registered post was returned unserved with postal endorsement ,.Not Claimed, Return to Sender,,. The possession notice dated 10.70.2024 has been duly delivered to the applicant as per the postal track report _annexed to the ,rMg (-/

¶17

sA No. 77/2025

¶18

reply statement.^{The possession notice has been affixed on the} secured^{property and published in two newspapers'Therefore'} there is no^{violationof any of provisionsof the SARFAESIAct} and the Rules,^2002.

¶19

Applicant's^{right to advancearguments has been forfeitedvide} docket order^{dated L8.07'2025'Heard learned counsel for the} respondent bank'^{Perusedthe materialplaced on record'}

¶20

Learned counsel^{for the respondentbank, while reiteratingthe} pleadings in the SA,^{prayed for dismissalof the SA in the} interest of^justice.

¶21

Now the^{points that arise for determinationare:-}

¶22

ll'hether the Applicant^{madeout any valid} ground for quashing^{the measuresinitiated} by the respondent^{companyu/s 14 of the} Securitisation^{Act against the SA schedule} property?

¶23

ii) To what reliel?

¶24

Point No.^(i):

¶25

Applicant^{filed the present SA challengingthe action of} respondent bank to^{take the physical possessionof the secured} property though the advocate^{commissioner notice on the} groundsofillegalclassificationofloanaccountaSNPA,violation of^provisions of^{the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002 in} Servingthedemandnoticeandthepossessionnotice.Rebutting these allegations, respondent^{bank filed sufficientmaterial} evidencing service of^{demand notice and t[e posse!;sion notice} ffilu"" (-

¶26

¶27

sA No. 11/2025

¶28

vide pages 1 to g annexed the reply statement. Applicant has not disputed the said evidentiary material. In fact, applicant did not choose to advanc rime. Admitt"o,r, upprl.#ffH.1:'H:,JI lilTJ":: EMIs due to losses in the s ven .,..rrr,ur.J: ;ffi;.:::': ::'11 ?:i:T : valid ground to interdi tak ns the phys ca,J:::", :;T: L::::":11T.ilJ1"J Advocate Commissioner 'ARFAEST^{act rnererore:H: ::l,Ti;i::} ::ffi ::: ::il: liable to be dismissed.

¶29

B. In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on Web portal.

¶32

'!i:':;,';n,r';,1!;,,,',!1,,!;,..r,r,,",,^{totct prrtnouncedb1.nrcirt thc ot)ett} c.ourt on thi.\ th(

¶33

-'ll^,, (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pynam Suharlatha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pynam Suharlatha v. Union Bank of India

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar