Dismissed

Bazaru Arun Kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRT3 Oct 2025SA/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's steps to take physical possession. The Tribunal held that the bank followed proper procedures regarding demand and possession notices, and the Advocate Commissioner's appointment was legal.

What did the court decide?

The application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed; the interlocutory applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Bazaru Arun Kumar versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAy OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.142 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Bazaru Arun Kumar, Male, S/o B. Badri Narayana, Aged 34 years, occ: business, H.No. 16-50/8, flat no.601, 6th floor, Ponnapalli plaza, Behind Little Flower Junior College, Prashanth Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039, TS.

¶7

Sri B. Badri Narayana, Male, S/o B.B. Shankaraiah, Aged 63 years, occ: business, H.No. 16-50/8, flat no.601, 6th floor, Ponnapalli plaza, Behind Little Flower Junior College, Prashanth Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039, TS. Applicants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The Authorised ofFicer, Union Bank of India, ARB branch, nampally, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, ARB branch, Nampally, Hyderabad. Respondents Counsel for Counsel for Appli ffi:n'\ arendra Kumar t030.[I^zm$r,i ngini Pisipati W***9

¶11

ls^.142/2024)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The applicants filed securitisation Application under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner under SARFAESI Act.

¶14

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶15

The first applicant is absolute owner of the schedule property and he availed housing loan from the respondent bank. Applicant no.2 stood as guarantor. Subsequently the applicants could not repay the loan amount, so the respondent bank declared the loan account as NpA and issued auction notice for conducting auction of schedule property. Challenging the same, the applicants filed SA.115/2023 but the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently the respondent bank filed Crl.MP.87/2024 before Hon'ble^principal Senior Civil Judge cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon,ble Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri, issued notices to the applicants to vacate the schedule property on 23.03.2024. The respondents have not served the possession nts and possession notice was not s affixed on le and it was not published in J^otorTzus : (.ll 2-j. ,n '5,j*. \S&,*,*W,'-Qj$r'

¶16

(sA.742/2024l

¶17

newspapers. Hence the respondents are not entitred to take physicar possession of the property through Advocate commissioner. Hence the sA.

¶18

The Respondent bank filed reply statement contending that the applicants having availed loan from respondent bank committed default in repaying the loan amount, so the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.12.2019. Thereafter the demand notice was issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on L4.OL.2O2O and possession notice dated 12.09.202L was issued and the same were received by the appricants, The said possession notice was arso

¶19

published in newspapers and affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the respondent bank fired crr.Mp.g7/zoz4 on the fire of Hon'ble cMM, Medchar Markajgiri under section 14 of sARFAESI Act. The Ld cMM was pleased to appoint Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedure property. Thus the respondent bank followed the provisions of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in affixing the possession notice. Hence the sA is riabre to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard the arguments.

¶21

Now the point for con

¶22

i) Whetherr@

¶23

'ished any valid grounds for the Respondents for taking * "' *'n''n I" i"f'nc'f'ffi' $l \e--#'

¶24

(sA.142120241

¶25

physicar possession of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner ?

¶26

ii) To What Relieft

¶27

Point no.i)

¶28

During the course of arguments, the counser for the appricant and respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the appricants avaired roan from the respondent bank and thereafter committed default. As per the documents filed by the respondent bank it is clear that the roan account was classified as NpA and the bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the applicants.

¶29

The contention of the appricants is that the respondents have not served the possession notice to the applicants and possession notice was not affixed on schedule property and it was not published in newspapers and so the respondent bank is not entitled to take physical possession of schedure property through Advocate commissioner.

¶30

The contentions of the respondent bank is that the respondent bank scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices to the ndent bank is entitled to take physical on of th'€ schedq$'$.roperty through advocate commissioner.

¶31

(sA.t42/20241

¶32

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice, enclosed the relevant documents to the reply statement filed by it. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 14.01.2020, the respondent bank issued demand notice to the applicants and the applicants refused to receive the notice, so there is a deemed service of notice to the applicants. Thereafter the respondent bank issued possession notice dated t2.08.202t to the applicants and the applicants received the said possession notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the respondent bank. The said^possession notice was published on 18.08.2021 in "Business Standard" and^.'Mana Telangana,, i.e., English and Telugu daily newspapers. Thus the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 8(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice to the Applicants.

¶33

Subsequent to the issuing of possession notice by the respondent bank, the respondent bank approached Hon,ble CMM,

¶34

Medchal Mal .MP.84/2024 as per the provisions of Section ng appointment of Advocate rs^{ilffiesiag8^</sup> comm n of schedule property. The 3".'flrhfin^mu'.": Hon'ble fter considering the matter placed}

¶35

(sA.t42/zoz4l

¶36

before him, appointed an Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of schedule property. Thereafter the said advocate commissioner on 23.03.2024 issued notice to the applicants directing them to vacate the schedure premises within 15 days from the date of said notice. so the said notice issued by the Advocate commissioner is perfectly legal and varid and it is binding on the appricants. so I see no ground warranting the interference of this Tribunal with the impugned possession notice dated 12.Og.2O2l issued by the Respondent bank in respect of schedure property. so there are no merits in the sA, hence the sA is liabre to be dismissed. so this point is answered accordingly.

¶37

Point no.ii)

¶38

In the result, SA.t42/2024 is dismissed.

¶39

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

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to th9 PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd Oct, 2025)

¶42

ffie<br>j oJocril6 *
W,-rry

¶43

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER :W"',,.,{i,"

Bazaru Arun Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bazaru Arun Kumar 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

B Kalavathi and Others versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Takshay Enterprises

Baliram Tungar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kathoth Kunya

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddi Pavani

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddi Ravi