Dismissed

Manadala Sriramulu v. Union Bank of India

DRT16 Sept 2025SA/155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the bank's action to take physical possession and set aside a notice of sale. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the bank served all notices properly, the account was NPA, and the applicant failed to prove procedural deviation or file a counter-statement.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Manadala Sriramulu versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 16IH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization Application No.l55 OF 2022

¶4

Sreeramulu Mandala, S/o Narayana Aged 52 years, Occ: Business R/o Plot No.20, Road No.4 IDA Mallapur, Hyderabad

¶5

Versus

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Union Bank of India Malkajgiri Branch Mirzalguda, Matkajgiri Hyderabad-500 033 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶9

-:ORDER:-

¶10

, The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ZOO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare the action of respondent bank pursuant to Warrant dated 70.06.2022 in Crl.Mp N}.6B/ZO2Z on the file of Chie Metropolitan Magistrate. Nampally, Hyderabad for taking physicat possession of the application schedule property, as illegal and set aside the notice of sale through private treaty dated 06.11.2023 fixing auction on 29.11.2023.

¶11

The averments of the application, briefly, are that respondent bank failed to demand notice with date of NpA, outstanding amount and without affixing and publishing the possession notice, initiated action under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002. Hence this 54. r\r,,n---,}.' _\1, _'

¶12

Page 2 of3

¶13

SA No'1s5/2022

¶14

The^{respondentbank filed replystatement along with} documents.Thecontentsbriefly,arethatafteravailingthemortgage loanofRs.32'5olakhsin2015,appl|cantfailedtorepaythesame hence account^{became NPA on 23 11 2019 and Securitization} proceedings^{cameto be initiatedby issuing demandnotice followed} by^{possessionnotice dated22'06'2020 and sent by registered post'} Oro,,.n"O^{in 'BusinessStandard' and 'ManaTelangana' newspapers} on 25.06.2020^{besides affixture on secured asset'Thereafter} approached^{learnedCMMfor appointmentof advocatecommissioner} for taking^{physical possessionof the assetAs per Sec'14(3) action of} learnedcMMcannotbecalledinquestion.MorethanRs.22.STlakhs is to be^{recoveredfrom applicant'SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶15

Representative^{of learned counsel appearing for the applicant} reported^{that orders maybe passed based on records' Heardlearned} counsel^{for the respondent bank and perusedthe material broughton} record.

¶16

During^{the courseof arguments'the learned counselfor the for} the respondent^{bank reiterated the contents as in the reply statement} and sought^{for dismissalof the SA}

¶17

The^{points for considerationare as follows : -} "'t y:::'*:';"zi::;:';,#?:; ;;"#L:;::':;:zli"'::' TiZtln'iin"iiii^{p'"pertvas praved ror?}

¶18

ii) To^{what relief?}

¶19

After^{filing the aPplicationthe aPplicanthas not contested the} case^{by submitting argumentsHowever'he failed to substantiatehis} pleadings by^{filing any statementof account that account wasnot} NPA'Asperdocumentsfiledbytherespondeqtbank,demandnotice ,^fftioure

¶20

Page 3 of 3

¶21

SA No.155|ZOZZ

¶22

and possession notice have been duly sent by registered post and published besides affixing the possession notice on the schedule property. Applicant failed to prove deviation of procedure. Reportedly the even the subsequent auction scheduled on t4.03.2024 was not successful. Respondent bank being secured creditor is entitled under sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to approach learned CMM/DM seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for physical possession of secured asset. The applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the action of the respondent bank under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Point No.(ii):

¶24

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶27

(Typed .to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16'h doy of September, 2025).

¶28

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Manadala Sriramulu v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manadala Sriramulu 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nivansh Modulars

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ramesh Paper Plate Supply

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Fareeduddin

Yes Bank versus Nellikanti Lingaiah

A Kishore Chowdary versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Tokala Nageswara Rao