Dismissed

G Sreedevi v. Union Bank of India

DRT25 Jun 2025SA/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitisation application u/s.17 of SARFAESI Act as not maintainable because the verification affidavit was signed by an advocate instead of the applicant, which the court held was a non-curable procedural defect.

What did the court decide?

Application for declaration issued u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act dismissed as not maintainable due to defect in verification.

G Sreedevi versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR-KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

S ECU RITISATION APPLICATION No. 181 OF 2023 ALONG WITH I.A. 522 oF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. G. Sreedevi W/o G. Ramesh Babu Aged 53 years, Occ: Business (t!/2.^S_ai Sreekar Enterprises), H. ,O._S-5-154/1, 1't Floor, t-u!? r"lplt Street, Ranigunj, secunderabad_500003.

¶6

.......Appticant.

¶7

And

¶8

Union Bank of India 1'' Floor, Bunglow No.109 r\ew No. t-7_252_254 Oxford Street, S.D. Road secnderabad_ 500003.

¶9

. . . . . .Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Appticant Counsel for Respondent

Mr. Mukesh Sharma.

Ms. K. Sritatha.

-:ORDER:_

The Appricant fired the present securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Mo Act, 2OO2

¶15

sA. 181/2023

¶16

(hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act 2OOZ") assailing sale notice dated 06.04.2023 fixing the date of auction as 26.04.2023 against the Application schedule property.

¶17

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that applicant business loan of Rs.30 lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs.90 lakhs in the year 20L4. Applicant committed default in paying some instalments during Corona^pandemic period. Applicant was extended Covid.19 Pandemic reliefs as per RBI guidelines. Applicant paid around Rs.16 lakhs towards OD account opened subsequently. Had the respondent credited these amounts to the business loan account, it would not have become NpA. Applicant's OTS proposal has not been considered by the respondent bank. Applicant requested for regularisation of account by accepting the overdue amount. Respondent bank has not issued possession notice u/s 13(4) and Rule 8(6) notice before issuing the sale notice dated 06.04.2023. Respondent violated the provisions of Rules 8(5), 8(7) and 9(1). The sale notice has neither been served on the applicant nor published in two newspapers. Respondent has not followed the procedure as laid in Rules B(1) and B(2) in issuing the possession notice. Respondent sent a casual reply in a mechanical manner to the objections raised on release of loan amount and classification of NPA. Respondent has not furnished complete statement of account, rates of interest/ penal interest charged from time to time and capitalisation of the same, due date of instalments, etc. A portion of the property is sufficient to meet the requirements of respondent bank. ,/nV<r.tY /),/^_L<i,v "

¶18

sA. 181/2023

¶19

Respondent bank filed reply statement. While denying the allegations in respect of non_compliance of provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules thereunder in unnumbered para 4 page 4 0f the repry statement, respondent bank pointed out that the Affidavit is in the name of Mrs. G. Sridevi, the applicant and the verification is given by one Arvind Kumar Medi. Therefore, the Securitisation Application is liable to be dismissed for the reason of the same being not filed as per procedure.

¶20

I have perused the relevant page of the Securitisation Application and noticed that the person signing on behalf "Counsel for the Appellant,, and the person verifying the Application are one and the same. The learned counsel on record for applicant has not signed the Securitisation Application and the signature verifying the contents of the affidavit is apparently not of the applicant. Though this defect is a curable one, the applicant has not chosen to cure the same even though the same was raised by the respondent in its reply statement. The copy of the reply statement was received by the learned counsel for the applicant on 09.L1.2023. In such a situation, it is to be treated that the applicant has not instituted the SA in conformity with the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and the Rules there under. Accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶21

In the result, the SA is dismissed as not-maintainable.

OWooe

sA. 181/2023

No.522/2023^and 6. Consequently,^{Interlocutory Application} if any, shall^stand other Interlocutory^{Applications pending} closed. No order^{as to costs.}

¶27

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned} and upload^{in official Web Portal'}

¶28

(Dictoted to the steno,^{signedondpronouncedby me in the open court on this the} 25'h ddy of June,^2025). //Wnfi

¶29

EsHwnn^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

G Sreedevi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Sreedevi 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

State Bank of India versus Vishnu Infra Projects

Union Bank of India versus narayana swamy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sai Surface Coating Technologies

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Palagulla Shenkar Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shree Jslv Infra Pvt. Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bheemji Bhukya