Dismissed

Mr P Chinnakommulu v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT22 Jan 2025SA/169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Security Application under Section 77 of SARFAESI Act dismissing challenge against possession and auction notices issued by Union Bank of India as solicitor status represents no valid violations. Auction sale notice is declared infructuous due to stay. No relief granted. Uploaded document filed ith security nd eexemption of possession

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 77 of SARFAESI Act dismissed. Applicant granted no relief against the possession notice.

Mr P Chinnakommulu versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2()25 PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

SA.No. t 69/2022

¶3

Mr.^p. ChinaKommulu, S/o Narasaiah Managing p".i.,". of Shiva Shakti C_oton Ginning f,",Ar.t.i.; -'.o !r fo.lrj_(B_t;/2, ,!.atali^{Nagar, Enumamula,} Warangal.

¶4

... Applicant

¶5

l..City^{Union Bank,} Kumbhakonam, TAmilnadu Rcp. by its Autho.ir"Jl[i.".

¶6

M /s LaxmiVenkateswara Geessugandamandal,Cotton Industrie", G;;;unta viliage, Waranga

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Appticant Counsel for the 1"7 R.rpo nd.ent Respond.ent No.2

¶9

Mrs.P. Sri Lalithq Smt.p.Laxmi Chaya Exparte

¶10

:ORDER:-

¶11

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 77 0fthe sARFAESI Act, Notice dt 07 ro 2o2l and Auction ::,rJ rv::,::.,:,T ::::::"ession

¶12

n the application, in brief, are that:

¶13

Respondent No D .;^ rn d u s tri e " "")" :,;,"::ITH; llT: ;j..::::: J,::,ff whereas the Appticant stood as guarantor to the said loan fac,ities. The 2ndRespondent committed def,ault ili":ffi'::#; notice dt.06.05.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAEsI Act, 2002 to the Appricant and Respondent No.2 and to the said notice, the Appricant raised objections vide representation dt.l|.O7.2021 whereas Respondent No.2 submitted their objections on 23.og.2027but there was no response from the l st Respondent Bank to the said ;H:,::.";r:1.*after,^{the lst Respondent bank issuedpossession} said notic. *u",.rO2l to the Applicant and Respondent No.2 but the not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Similar Auction Sare Notice dt. r r.o u,llr::: ;.-:,,J:IJ :fJ.- ;:::: served on the Applicant and the reserve price fixed by the Iess than the mark., u.,,i.'., ,rf'"""1.0,,. ;".T.'.TT:ffi:. ,;

¶14

The l"tRespondent Bank adverse aregations made i:',ff':f? ll"l'::"t denving arr the .i'#..;.ill.;i;.",;: bank and the Applicant stood as guarantor and he created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. As the 2nd Respondent committed default in repayment of Ioan amounts due, the loan account was :fi#:fiJ:#;Jil.nd^{notice dt 06 os 2o21uls} 13(2) of the ---t. 'rvvrruilrlt "d and to the said no rin- .r:":o to the Applicant and 2 'd Respondent fino +L^ ^ ffi [ :iT,:::;,;:;:,rH^{;::;; i.J, :::} ;T: il":.*Htlj iiI^off",ui.,Notice rl;0, 1o.2o2r a nd ,".u'.Ilf.l,i.:::^, liE '$;'a"r.^."tJarr" nron;rtv nr.,naF+_. -,1 .;4o,n. , ,^"ouo ";;^I ffiiT:'fi:[il::';"J^{rl.,took symbolicpossesslon} fl;,;of rhc

¶15

wiililt"g'

¶16

and Andhra Jyothi da,y newspapers on 13.Lo.2021 and the said notice was also affixedon the schedule property. Thereafter the lstRespondent Bank issued Auction sare Notice dt. 1g.06.2022 for conducting auction of the schedure property on 12.o7.2022but the said auction as proposed was not conducted by the l.tRespondent Bank in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal. Hence there are no the sA' Accordingtv, l stRespondent Bank praved to dismiss ;:t,f,}]"

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Respondent Bank. Respondent No.2 was set Ld. Counsel for Ist exparte. perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶19

i) Whether the Applicant established anA uatid ground for cha'enging the possesszon Notice d"t.07.10.2021 and. Auction sare Notice d,t. j8.06..2022 issued bg the 7.,r Respond.ent Bank in respect of the schedule properties?

¶20

iil To what relieJ?

¶21

Point No.lil:-

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ld. counser for the Appricant and Ld' counser for the lst Respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶23

..t::,.._ - ---_ vquv q.rs Lrlaf xespondent No.2 availed :i:ri:* ,:". rstRespondent Bank whereas the Applicant

¶24

NpA and the 1st Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.06.OS.2O2l and the same was recei, and Respondent No.2 and thereafter rhey raisJ:.j;r',[":::::",

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is by the lst Respondent Bank to the "u:.",i.rr,JI;T,1..?;:::: and the Bank has not forowed the procedure laid down under the ::J*:::::*FSI Act' 2oo2 and Rures, made thereunder in rmpugned possession notice and sare notice. per contra, the lstRespondent Bank contended that they have forowed the due ff:.H.T}:::#T'L'^:::''",::"^i, 'ARFAE.T^{Act, 2oo2 and} Appricant vqrrttcr lrl tssuing all the relevant notices to the

¶26

The lstRespondent Bank rn order to substantiate their enctosed rerevant materiar documents ";;"':::::.::': contention, them. As per the materiar documents, Tt,:,,j.1" ;::" 1.J iJ Respondent Bank issued Replydt.lg.ll .2021in response to the objections raised by the Appricant and the 2,dRespondent as evidenced by the office copy of the said repry and the same was received by them as per the postar track reports fired by the Bank and thus' the lst Respondent bank has duly complied with Section 13(3XA) of the .ARFAESI Act, 2002 in giving repry to the objections raised by the Applicant and Respondent No.2. Thereafter the l"tRespondent Bankissued possession notice dt.o7.10.2021 to the Applicant and the said notice was admittedly received by the f, i J::T"J::.:: :'i':: ::: :".'ished^{in rhe}^{Hindu Andhra} Jyori da ry newspap.," ";;; ;; ;;;i::,I:::J:e p$Pge ffi fitf^{,*ffi,-q,-:::,} ::^jT ::^{" ;} i; "^;;;#"::';I'j ;::::; bds<. ;:,;;.ffi. rtl,],,, n,,:,^{? ? pf,?$.,.Yi.} or:.^ryliraia i'^:::'o'".t^{down under} bank has Rute ;i,;,;i;ilrJ;;:.::scrupurousry rorrowed the ir''i,, ,, (Enforcemeit"'tt , 2oo2in taking possession of the secured assets.

¶27

10' So far as Auction sare Notice dt.1g.06. 2022 is concerned, the proposed auction to be conducted on D.OZ.2O22 was not materiarized in view of the stay granted by this Tribunar, so nothing survives iri the sare notice to decide the varidry or otherwise of the said sale nodce as the sale noticebecomes infructuous. In the above ' circumstances, it is clear that the l"tRespondent Bank issued demand notice and possession notice as per the procedure raid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶28

11' Since the Auction sale notice dt. 1g.06.2022 which is in charenge in the present sA, becomes infructuous as no auction was conduced in pursuance of the said notice, the Applicant is not entitred for any relief. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the l"tRespondent Bank and against the Appticant. So far as demand notice and possession notice issued by the lst Respondent Bank are concerned, they are legal and valid.

¶29

Point No.(ii):-

¶30

12' In the result, the present securi tizationApplication is dismissed as there are no merits. The l"tRespondent Bank is at riberty to proceed afresh for conducting auction of the schedure propert5r by fo,owing the procedure as laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶31

pending if any, shall

¶32

14' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Drctated to the p.S trans aog ol,lorruo),'rdr'ri."""nutd^{bgher' corrected',} sigrted and pronouttced by nte inthe opert court o, this the 22,,,t

¶34

PRESIDING (c. copr OFF'ICETi""f^fJ; l$'ry1r.. fits

¶35

Dsr-L xvnloag-prg.

¶36

Mr P Chinnakommulu v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P Chinnakommulu v. City Union Bank Limited

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

Ms Venkatshwara Industries versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar versus Piramal Capital and Housind Finance

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

M S Gnr Products India versus State Bank of India

Bharath traders Alam and Jaggary merchants versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Bora Swami Naidu