Dismissed

V Kondal Raj v. Union Bank of India

DRT30 Oct 2025SA/126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the Hyderabad DRT dismissed the petitioner's prayer to set aside the bank's enforcement measures. The court held the bank complied with statutory requirements, including registered mortgage documents and proper notices, and found the failed auction rendered the application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous due to failed auction; interlocutory applications stayed closed.

V Kondal Raj versus Union Bank of India — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), r{.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application No.126 OF 2023

¶4

V. Kondal Raj S/o V. Narasaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ:Business H. No.7- 1-523, Vital Chambers II Floor, Opp.Gurudwara. Ameerpet Hyderabad 500016 Proprietor of M/s Laxmi Venkata Ramana Constructions

¶5

Versus

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch #249l3RT, 1st Floor lvlain Road, SR Nagar Hyderabad 500038 Rep by its Authorized Signatory

¶8

....Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr, G. Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr.V. Sethu Madava Rao

¶10

-:ORDER:-

¶11

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside the measures of the respondent bank under Sec.13(4) including the e-auction fixed on 28.03.2023 pursuant to sale notice dated 20.02.2023 in respect of SA schedule property.

¶12

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed financial assistance from the respondent bank and %*1:t.the request U'-t"

¶13

Page² of4

¶14

SA No'126/2023

¶15

bank sanctioned^{loan and informedthat applicantis entltledto} subsidized^{rate interest. The officials of bank obtained signatureson} blank^{printed formats. Though he had been regularly paying the} amount,^{due to Covid-19 pandemicthe constructionbusiness got} adversely^{affected resultingin financial crunch Without considering} the request^{to regularize the account' respondent bank proceededto} issuesalenoticedated20.o2.2o23inrespectofscheduleproperty without there^{being exclusiverights over the same of the applicant'} Respondent^{bank failed to serve demand noticeand possessionnotlce} and^{publishand affix the possessionnotice No 30 days notice was} issuedpriortoauctionsalenoticeasperjudgementofHon,bleHigh Court of^{Telangana in SW Prasad RaoGuptavs' State Bank of lndia} (2021 ScC OnLine^{TS 328) The accountis not NPA as per RBI} guidelines and the^{scheduleproperty is not security interestas} Sec.2(zc)^{of the Act, 2OO2Respondent bank failed to follow RBi} Circulars for^{MSME units. Hence this SA'}

¶16

The^{respondentbank filed replystatementalongwith} documents'^{Applicantwassanctionedterm loan of Rs'1'91 crores} against mortgage^{of applicationschedule property situated at} Erragadda,^{Hyderabad.The applicant deposited the originaltitle deed} and executed^{MoDT on 30 03.2017 vide Doc No 1886/2017Due to} default in^{repayment,the account becameNPA on 17'09'2019and} Securitization^{proceedings have beeninitiated by issuing demand} notice u/s 13(2)^{on 19.09.2019 for Rs'1,85,67'40510 ps'Since} applicant evaded^{to receivethe same by post, the demand noticewas} published in 'l4ana^{Telangana' and 'BusinessStandard'newspapers'} The^{possessionnoticedated 23.12.2079was issued, sent by} registered^{post, affixed on securedasset and publishedin 'Mana}

¶17

Page 3 of4

¶18

SA No.12612023

¶19

obtaining varuation report from approved varuer, auction sare notice dated 16.02.2023 was issued. However, auction on 2a.O3.2023 did not materialize for want of bidders. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Representative of learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank. Both learned counsel reported no orat arguments. Perused the material record. 5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondent bank contended that after availing credit facility the applicant failed to repay the same as per agreed terms and hence account became NpA. The property is a security interest by virtue of registered MoDT executed by the applicant by depositing tifle deeds. The learned counsel while referring to the documents annexed to reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure as prescribed in the Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder, sought for dlsmissal of the SA. He further informed that the impugned auction did not materialize for want of bidders.

¶21

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶22

i) Whether the applicant made out any vatid ground to quash any of the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶23

ii) To what relieP

¶24

Point No.(i ):

¶25

Reportedly the auction sale scheduled on 28.03.2023 failed for want of bidders. SA has become infructuous with reoard to auction sale.

,fu|,,,s'

Page^{4 of 4}

SA No'126/2023

B.^{Admittedlythe applicant availed credit facility and committed} default^{due to financial crisis' HenceNPAcannotbe questioned'The} contention^{of applicantthat the schedule propertyis not security} interest^{does not deserveacceptanceas the MoDTNo'188612017} dated^{30.03 .2ot7 is the registered document executedby the} applicant.^{The schedule therein describes all floors' Silt and undivided} share^{of land. As per documents placed on record' the demand notice} and^{possessionnotice have been sent by registered post and} published.^{The possession notice was affixed on securedasset'These} documents^{are not disputed by the applicant and the applicant failed} to establish^{any infraction of Secs'13(2)' 13(4)of the Act' 2002and} Rules B(1)^{and B(2) of the SecurityInterest (Enforcement)Rules'} 2002. Accordingly^{SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

In the result,^{the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶32

Consequently,^{the InterlocutoryApplicationspending' if any'} shallstandclosed.NoorderaStocosts.Communicateacopyofthis order to the^{parties concernedand upload in the official website'}

¶33

(Typed to my dictotion^{by thePs, corrected'signed ond pronounced by me in the opencourt on this} the 30'h^{doy of october,2025).}

¶34

/ow*" (n(taesxweR KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

V Kondal Raj v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Kondal Raj 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

Ms SIta Trading versus Union Bank of India

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank versus Mr. K Manohar

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

Bank of Baroda versus Dasari Janardhana

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad