Dismissed

gattameni vijay srinanth v. Union Bank of India

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/161/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought to set aside the eviction measures initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court found the bank complied with legal procedures to take possession after the applicant defaulted, dismissed the application, and held no illegality existed in the bank's action.

What did the court decide?

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

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST'2025}

¶2

PRESENT:^{sH. RAMESHWART[?TBF;,';Ei''L'LB (Hons')' M'A'}

¶3

Securitization^{ApplicatlonNo'161 OF 2024}

¶4

Gattamaneni^{VijaY Srinath} S/o G. Subba^Rao Aoed 39 vears,^{Occ: Business} nio n.uo.t-z-tO+/1A,^{Sri Sai Nilayam} South^{Kamala nagar, ECIL Post-} [ap.a,^{nvoe.aoa?t,Tela nga na- 5000 62}

¶5

.......ApPlicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

LJnion Bank^{of India} ReD bv the^{AuthorizedOfficer} Office at^{: SMEBranch, Moulali} H.No.268,^{Raghavendra Nagar} APHB Colony^{Main Road} Moulali,^{Hvderaba d - 500040, Telangana}

¶8

... ResPondent

¶9

: Mr.Arunn^Marri7eddi Counsel^{for the APPlicant} Counsel for^{RespondentBank : Mr'M'V'S'Prasad}

¶10

-: ol-Dl-B:'

¶11

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FlnancialAssetsand} Enforcement^{of Security InterestAct,2OO2(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to^{dectare the measuresof eviction notice dated} 28.02.2024^{in pursuanceof Crl'MP No 339 of 2023 againstthe} application^{schedulepropertyas null and void'}

¶12

The case of^{the aPplicant,in} brief, is that^{he is the borrower} financial Problems^{he couldnot} and owner of^the Property.^{Due to} considering the^{objectionsand} pay some instalments.^Without without serving demand^notice, eo.""'iouf*s;&xins^and

¶13

Page 2 ol3

¶14

SA No.16U2024

¶15

publishing the possession n the respondent bank got issued vacate notice. Hence this ro.ot'tu'

¶16

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that due to irregutarity in repayment the account of applicant became NpA on ZS.O3.ZOZO as per RBI norms followed by Securitization measures. The demand notice was sent to the appricant and pubrished, the possession notice was also sent to him besides publication and affixture on secured asset. Auction sale notice was also published. Respondent bank approached learned CMM, Medchat Malkajgiri by filing Crl.Mp No.339/2023 for appointment of advocate commissioner ,ol- ,uO,nn physical possession of the asset. Accordingly Commissioner issued vacate notice. The appricant suppressed the fact of firing sA 726/2024 for the same cause of action. SA is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶17

Heard and perused the counser ror the appricant ""0 "T::::"i;1ff#:"t:::,:: ""'

¶18

The points for consideration are as follows : _

¶19

i) Wllthel the applicant made out any valid ground to set aside the action of respondent o"i* ir-tiiiii'iiiri,rrr for? possession of the aDol..^,tcatton schedule property as prayed

¶20

ii) To what relief?

¶21

Point No.(i):

¶22

Respondent bank filed documents in IA No.tgTg/2025 as proof of compliance of due procedure. As per the documents, demand notice and possession notice have been served and published. Except stating that the respondent did not consider the objections, the

/fus;'"

Page 3 of³

SA No'151/2024

applicant has^{not filed any such objections or proof of servingthe} same on the^{respondent bank.}

¶27

Further, the applicant^{suppressedthe fact of filingSAs by him} and the tenant^{and hence he cannot be permittedto find Fault with} the action of^{the respondent bank' Admittedly applicantcommitted} default on account^{of which securitizationproceedingscame to be} initiated for^{recovery of legitimate dues' The respondentbank being} secured creditor,^{is entitled under sec.14 of the Act to approach the} learned CMM/DM^{to take physicalpossessionof the securedasset' I} find no illegality^{or irregularityin the action of the respondent bank'}

¶28

The applicant^{failed to make out any valid ground to set aside} the action of the^{respondentbank for taking physicalpossessionof} the application^{scheduleproperty'AccordinglySA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶29

Point No.(ii):

¶30

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

¶31

Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending' if any' shall} stand closed.^{No orderas to costs'}

¶32

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned and} upload in^{the officialwebsite.}

¶33

(Typed to my dictotion by^{theP5,corrected,signed ondpronounced by mein the opencourt on this} the 26th doy^{of August, 2025).}

¶34

AR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

gattameni vijay srinanth v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

gattameni vijay srinanth 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 Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited