Dismissed

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

DRT24 Jun 2025SA/125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed an application challenging the respondent bank's steps to take physical possession under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held that the bank duly served all statutory notices and followed the required procedure before seeking possession through an Advocate Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah versus Union Bank of India (Andhra… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT^HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 241N DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDINGOFFICER}

¶4

sA.No.125/2022

¶5

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah, S/o. Sandrapally Subbaiah, Aged about 58^years, Occ:^Business, R/o. H.No.7-5llE, Jai Santosh^Nagar Colony, Sri Sai Venkateshwar^Nilayam, Street No.S, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-7.

Applicant.

Versus

Union Bank of India

(Erstwhile Andhra Bank)

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Ramanthapur Public School^CamPus, Warangal Road, RamanthaPur, Hyderabad - 500 013.

¶11

Respondent.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the ResPondent

¶13

Si D. Ragharrulu. Si V. Sethumadhaua Rao.

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

This application is filed by^{the Appticantsu/s'17 of the SARFAESI Act,} 2002, challenging the steps^{initiated by the RespondentBank for taking} physical possession of the application^{schedule property throughAdvocate} Commissioner as^per the^{Warrant issuedin Crl.M'P'No.49 of 2022 on lhe} file of the Ld. Chief Judicial^{Magistrate,Sanga Reddy.}

¶16

The a licant in the application,^{in brief, are that,} the Respondent Bank^{by mortgaging the} thereafter, he could^{not pay some loan} ts lnf qf,JlltrfizJoan unt has been classified^{as NPA by the}

¶17

SA.No.125/2022

¶18

Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank, without serving Demand Notice and Possession Notice and without affixing and publishing the statutory notices, has initiated steps before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking physical possession of the application schedule property. Hence, the SA.

¶19

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application and contended that, the Applicant after availing the loan, committed default in repaying the loan amount and so the loan account has been classified as NPA on 31.10.2019. The Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice on 02.11.2019 and same was served on the Applicant. Thereafter Possession Notice dt.16.01.2020 was issued and same was received by the Applicant. The Possession Notice was affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in 'Financial Express' and'Eenadu' newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank approached the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal and filed Cr1.M.P.No.49l2022 uls.l4 of the SARFAESI Act, and the Ld. CJM was pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the application schedule property. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder and so the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant has established any grounds for setting aside the proceedings W he Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act"/J schedule property?

,* ii) To what

SA.No.125/2022

Point No.ll)t

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed Loan by mortgaging the application schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of the loan amount.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicant is that, the Respondent Bank, without serving Demand Notice and Possession Notice, is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Ld. CJM, Sanga Reddy, in Cr1.M.P.No.49 12022. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that, it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARPAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while issuing Demand Notice and Possession Notice to the Applicant and so it is entitled to take physical possession of the schedule property.

¶28

The Respondent Bank, in order to estabiish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, in issuing statutory notices to the Applicant, has filed the material documents. As per the said documents, the Respondent Bank has issued Demand Notice on 02.11.2O19 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and sarne was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the Postal Track Report. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank has issued Possession Notice ot 16.O7.2020 u/s. 13(a) of the SARFAESI and same was received by the Applicant as eyidenced by the Postal Track Report. The Possession Notice was affixed on the application schedule property as depicted from the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, the Possession Notice was pub Express' and 'Eenadu' newspapers dated 20.o S en the copies of paper publications filed by the R ent Ba The dent Bank has approached the Ld. CJM, ii:R.dly4^bJtjftll Crl.il. .No.49/2022 u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act the J I-d. C.lM was appoint Advocate Commissioner for taking

¶29

¶30

SA.No.125/2022

¶31

physical possession of the schedule property and the Advocate Commissioner has issued notice to the Applicant on^{11 .O5.2O22giving15} days time for vacating the schedule property. The Applicant,^{instead of} complying the said notice, has fiIed the^present SA without^{any valid} grounds.

¶32

So, in the circumstances stated above, I hold that there^{are no merits in} the SA and the Applicant has failed to establish any valid^ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps taken by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule^property through Advocate Commissioner. So, this^point is answered against^the Applicant.

¶33

Potnt No.(ii):-

¶34

In the result, the present Securitization Application is^dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if^{any, shall stand} disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶36

(Dctated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and^pronounced bg^me in^{the open} court on this the 24th daA of June, 2025).

¶37

sd/(G. GOPICHANDI Presiding Officer

¶38

UbCOq b:'*"dnY".Y.],Qfir

¶39

o#--;,-Y,iDERABAD'

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah v. Union Bank of India (Andhra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Madduri Someshwar Reddy

Ms Population Shoe Mart versus Ms Piramal Capital and Hosuing Finance

M s Mourya Automotives versus The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao versus State Bank of India

md azeez ahmed versus shriram finance limited

vootla vara parasd versus shriram finance limited