Dismissed

P Devender Rao v. Union Bank of India

DRT24 Oct 2025SA/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a pre-Sale Notice issued by Union Bank of India. The applicant alleged procedural lapses regarding notice publication and redemption time. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the bank scrupulously followed the statutory procedure under the Act and related Rules.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Application No. 128/24 was dismissed as the pre-Sale notice issued was legal, valid and binding.

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHIS THE24-IH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No. t2e/2O24

¶4

P. Devender Rao S/o Sampath Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. t-92, Gandrapally, Jammlkunta, Karimnagar Dist. -50546g.

¶5

And Union Bank of India, Huzurabad branch, H.No.20-558, Gandhi Nagar, Huzurabad Karimnagar District-50546g Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant Si K.Buchi Babu

¶9

Counsel for the Respond.ent Sri V. Setlru Madhaua Rao Reserued on 18.09.2025 Pronounced on 24.10.2025 Uploaded on 24.10.2025

¶10

.:ORDER:-

¶11

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the notice of prior to Sale dt.17.O2.2O24 issued by

¶12

the in respect of the schedule propert5r and to and void. ra ) Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶13

Mrs.Lingampally Saritha availed loan from the Respondent Bank whereas the Applicant herein is co_applicant and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security. Due to loss in tre business, the borrower could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondent classified the loan account as NpA and issued demand notice dt.08.09.2023 u/s t3(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued possession notice but the same was not published in newspapers and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property. Subsequently, the Bank issued impugned 30 days Sale Notice dt.lZ.O2.2O24 without giving clear 30 days time to the Applicant to redeem the secured asset and so, the said notice is invarid and liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that M/s Maruthi Fly Ash Bricks rep' by its proprietor Mrs.Lingamparly Saritha availed 10an from the Respondent bank whereas the Applicant stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Thereafter, the borrower committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent classified the loan account as NpA. Thereafter t}le Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.0g.0 g.2)23u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the bank also published the same in daily newspapers. Even after issuance of the demand notice, the borrower and the Applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues, so, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.2g.r2.2023and the same was affixed on the schedule property and it was published in two leading newspapers. Thus the Respondent bank followed Rule g(l)(2) of Securi (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Thereafter, the notice dt.17.02.2024 u/r 3(6) of Rules, to the Applicant by Regd.post. So there are no .ri gerits^{in tlG-SA} and acgr ,^the Respondent prayed to dismiss the i t*. 2 I ocT 2f,5 t?-' ? 1 ^di 'Q,wgig

¶16

¶17

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank. perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. rahetLer the Applicant has establisted. ang ualid grounds for challenging the pre_Sale Notice dt.17.02.2024 issued by th.e Respondent in respect of tLe schedule propertg?

¶20

iii. To what relief?

¶21

Point No.lil :-

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions.

¶23

7 ' There is no dispute regarding the fact that M/s Maruthi Ash Fly Bricks represented by Mrs.Lingala saritha availed 10an from the Respondent Bank whereas the Applicant is co_applicant and created mortgage against the schedule property. Thereafter, the borrower committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that demand notice dt.0g.0 9.20223 was issued to the Applicant and the Applicant received the said notice. In fact, along with the SA, the Applicant filed copy ofthe said notice.

¶24

B. The f the Applicant is that the bank has not

¶25

fo11 under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Applicant and so, the 02.2024 issued by the Bank is not

¶26

Per contra, Respondent bank contended that the Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing arl the statutory notices to the Applicant and others.

¶27

In order to substantiate their contention, the Bank enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply fiIed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.og.og.2023 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice was sent through Regd. post to the Applicant and others and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. The bank also published the said notice in English and Telugu daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Subsequently, the bank issued possession notice dt.29.12.2o2g and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. post. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs liled by the Bank and the said notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by ttre copies of paper publication filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice. Thereafter the bank issued pre-sare notice dt.17.02.2024 u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2OO2 for giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem the schedule property within thirty days and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice. The Bank also obtained varuation report dt.07.0 g.2024

¶28

of the Bank and liled copy of the said report along with Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made the statutory notices to the Applicant. So, the , i'"S,f,,ffiif&ur. dt.17.O2.2O24 issued by the Bank for giving licant to redeem the secured asset u/r g(6) of

¶29

security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is perfectly legal and valid and binding on the Applicant. This point is answered accordingly.

¶30

Potnt l,b.(fi)r

¶31

In the result, SA l2B/24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶32

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dctated to the p's' transcibed. by her, conected., signed. and pronounced. bg me in tLe open court on this the 24th dag of October, 2025).

¶35

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

Utrq
f 4.--'$tu
,!p W
" 2tt/cl7fi6 *
,r**s9

¶37

rRUE @O?I , L^U.21*--2 -.... Aat.Rc6[ctnr DFI.I, }'}DERABAD,

P Devender Rao v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Devender Rao 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices

Mr Gunjala Sayanna versus Canara Bank