Dismissed

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

DRT29 Oct 2025SA/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by a company seeking to set aside auction measures, e-auction notices, and possession actions taken by the Union Bank of India pursuant to the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications pending stood closed.

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.158 OF 2022

¶5

M/s Kapeeshwar Roto packaging (OpC) pvt. Ltd Rep by its Director Sri B. Suresh S/o Ramulu, Aged about 50 years Occ: Business, R/ o H.No.4- 367 / 7 Plot No.38, Sarvodaya Nagar Colony I,'leerpet, Hyderabad - 5O0bO97

¶6

Versus

¶7

.......Appticant.

¶8

Union Bank of India

¶9

Rep by its authorized officer Situated at Bungalow No.109 New No.1-7-252 to 254, Oxford Street Sarojinidevi Road, Near park Lane Centre Secunderabad 500003

¶10

Mr. C. Sharat

¶11

S/o Chintala Satyana rayana

¶12

Aged about 40 years, Male

¶13

Occ: Not known, R/o H.No.16-9_648_1 649-402, t4atakpet, Hyderabad 500036

¶14

(Impleaded per order dt.13.03.2025 in IA No.3035/24)

¶15

....Respondents.

¶16

Counsel.for th-e Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu Counsel for 7s_t-Respondent Bank : Mr.-V. Sethu Madhava Rao counset for 2"" Respondent : Mr.Srinivasa Rao Chakrala

¶17

-:ORDER:-

¶18

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Apptication u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures of the respondent bank including the e-auction fixed on 28.03.2023 pursuant to sale notice 'rr' ZYt*-.2^a I j,/ ^"r''

¶19

sA No'158/2022

¶20

Page^{2 of5}

¶21

dated^{16.02.2023in respect of SA scheduleproperty and action of} respondent^{bank for taking physicalpossessionof the propertyvide} advocate^{commissionernotice dated 15'02'2023incrl MP} No.60/2023.

¶22

The^{case of the applicant'in brief is that applicant availed a} totalloanofRs.1,43,50,ooo/.fromrespondentbankforbusiness purpose against^{mortgageof application scheduleproperty'Though it} had been^{regularly paying instalments due to unforeseenproblems} and Covid-19^{pandemic some instalmentscould not be paid besides} which^{director of applicantfacedjudicialremandWithoutheeding to} request^{to regularizethe account' the respondentbank declared the} account^{as NPA'ResPondent bank failed to serve demandnotice'} possession^{notice and affix and publish the possessionnotice'} without obtaining^{correctvaluationand without servingRule 8(6)} notice the^{respondent bank issued e-auctionnotice dated} L6.O2.2o23.^{The sale notice was not affixed on property'proper} description^{of propertywas not given and pendency of SA is not} mentioned^{in the sale noticeWhile SA is pending the respondent} bank obtained^{orders in crl MP No 60/2023for takingphysical} possession'^{The respondent bank failed to follow Rules 3'8(1) and} 8(2), 8(5),^{8(6), 8(7) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)} Rules,^{2OO2 ("Rules" hereinafter) and hencethe SA'}

¶23

The^{respondentbank filed replystatement along with} documents.^{The submissions,briefly' are that due to irregularity in} payment, the account^{of applicant became NPA on 09'072021'} Respondent^{bank filed OA No 490/2021 on 27 'Og'?O?l for a claim of} Rs.1,36,98,251.95^{ps. Bank also initiated Securitizationproceedings} by issuing^{demandnoticedated2a'ol'2o22 u/s 13(2) and the same} n^payment was served^{on appricant and others *} =rrk:#:;tince

//'-^'tt''

Page 3 of5

SA No.158/2022

was made, possession notice dated 22.06.2022 uls 73(4) was issued, served personally and also sent by registered post on 23.06.2022, published in 'Financial Express' and 'Velugu' newspapers on 27 -06.2022 besides affixture on secured asset. The applicant failed to comply the interim conditional order passed by the Tribunal. After obtaining valuation report dated 74.0L.2023 from its approved valuer, respondent bank issued 30 days notice dated 16.02.2023 flxin9 auction on 28.03.2023. The auction sale scheduled on 28.03.2023 and 11.05.2023 did not materialize for want of bidders. The e-auction sale scheduled on 74.06.2023 materialized and one Sharat stood as successful bidder at Rs.66.28 lakhs and after payment of entire bid amount a sale certificate was also issued in his favour. The auction sale notice dated 15.05.2023 was sent by registered post to the applicant,^published in English and^Telugu newspapers and affixed on secured asset. Thereafter the respondent filed Crl.MP No.60/2023 and the advocate commissioner^tookphysical possession of the property by following due procedure and handed over to authorized offlcer. Though this Tribunal^{passedinterim} conditional order, the applicant again failed to^{complythe same.} Hence the applicant is not entitled to any^relief as^{per judgementof} Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Prestige^{Lights Ltd.} vs.^{State Bank of} India. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

The 2nd respondent adopted counter filed in IA^No.3035/2024 as hls reply statementⁱⁿ SA.^{The submissions, briefly, are that as per} documents filed by the bank, it^followed due^{procedure of law.He} participated in the auction on !4.06.2023, stood as successful bidder, the respondent bank issued sale^{confirmationletter on 15.06.2023} and sale certificate on 28.06.2023.^{Thele is no substancein the} application hence liable to be dismissed/1Y,o.r.,/( _./^{',^\r '}

¶29

Page 4 of s

¶30

SA No.158/2022

¶31

Representative of^{learned counsel for applicant reported that} orders may be^{passed based on records. Heard learned counsel} appearing for the 1't^{respondent bank.Perusedthe written} arguments filed^{by learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and} perused the material record.

¶32

It is the^{submissionof the learned counsel for the 1$} respondent bank that^{the bank has strictly followedthe procedure} prescribed under Secs.13(2), 13(4),^{13(8) and 14 of the Act and} Rules 8(1) and 8(2), 8(s), 8(6),^{8(7)and 9(1) of Rules,2002 While} referring to the documents^{placed on record as proof of such} compliance, learned^{counsel soughtfor dismissal of the SA.}

¶33

The^points for consideration^{are as follows :} -

¶34

i) Whether the applicant^made out^{any valid ground to} quash any of the measures of the respondent against the sA schedule^proqertY, as PraYed^for?

¶35

ii) To what relieP

¶36

Point No.(i):

¶37

The applicant admits of availing credit facilities^{to a tune of} Rs,1,43,50,000/- against^mortgage of^{application schedule property} and committing default^{in repayment.Hence the actionof respondent} bank classifying the account as^{NPA due to such default cannotbe} termed as illegal.

¶38

The^pleadings and^prayer even as^per the amended^{neat copy} filed on 01.04.2025^pertain to auction^scheduled on^28.03'2023 which did not materialize for want of bidders.^Hence SA^becomes infructuous as far as e-auction sale dated 2A.03,2023^{is concerned.} ,4W^r.* (:,/

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

SA No.1s8/2022

¶41

The 2nd respondent is the successful bidder in the auction held on 14.06.2023 against which no challenge is laid. However, as per documents filed by the l't respondent bank, demand notice and possession notice were duly served and possession notice was affixed on secured asset and published in English and Telugu newspapers. Valuation report was obtained from approved valuer. Previous auctions failed for want of bidders and the auction scheduled on 14.06.2023 was successful, sale was confirmed and sale certificate issued in favour of 2nd respondent-auction purchaser. The advocate commissioner had already taken physical possession of the secured asset under Panchanama and Inventory, No infraction of Secs.13(2), 13(4), 13(B) and 14 of the Act and Rules 8(1) and B(2), B(5), 8(6), B(7) and 9(1) of Rules, 2002 could be established by the applicant.

¶42

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent bank against the application schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Point No.(ii):

¶44

L2. In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶46

(Typed to my dictotion by the Ps, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2g'h dov of october, 2025).

¶47

'/^Aww-- "<' i^(/ / '/ '1h'<sup>- "-/.t'")ts' t{AMESfrWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 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

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v N Narendra Kumar

Mrs Nidamanuri Swaroop Rani versus Axis Bank

Magbul Jan versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Rayalaseema Bio Bags.

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

Uco Bank versus Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria