Dismissed

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana v. Union Bank of India

DRT26 Mar 2025SA/182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside possession and sale measures taken by a bank under SARFAESI, finding no violation of procedural rules regarding demand and possession notices.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. t82 of 2022

¶5

Smt. Yalamanchili Vandana W/o Shanmukha Prasad Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business R/o 16-2-227, Plot No.76, Sardarpatel Nagar Opp.Master Minds CA Academy Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072

¶6

......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India Rep by its Authorized Officer Gudivada Branch, Nehru Chowk Eluru Road, Krishna District.

¶9

... . .Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr.D. Raghavulu Mr.V. Sethu Madhava^Rao Counsel for Respondent Bank :

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{presentApplicationu/s.17 of the} securitization and Reconstruction of^{Financial AssetsandEnforcement} of Security Interest Act,^{2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) to set aside all the} measures of the respondent bank against^{the SA schedule property} under the provisions of the Act^{including the sale notice dated} 02.08.2022 fixing auction on^24.08.2022.

¶13

The averments of the application, briefly,^{are thaf the applicant} availed two loans of^{Rs.49 lakhs each in 2012 against mortgageof two}

¶14

l{trra -a. r- - )!'( t-

¶15

2of4

¶16

sA No.L82/2022

¶17

Flats No,402 and 502 situated in Bhagyanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Due to business losses, demise oF one of the partners, the applicant was unable to pay instalments regularly. The legal heirs of late V. Rangarao have not been included in the notice, The respondent bank issued the impugned sale notice without following Rules 3, B(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter). Hence this SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement. Averments thereof, briefly, are that the applicant along with other partners availed loan facility from erstwhile Andhra Bank and committed default in repayment. Consequently account was classified as NPA and demand notice u/s 13(2) was issued. Demand notice was duly served. The possession notice was personally served on applicant on 09.02.2020, published in 'Business Standard' and 'Praja Shakti' newspapers on 12.02.2020 and thus there is no violation of Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of 2002. The sale fixed on 24.08.2022 did not materialize for want of bidders and hence SA became infructuous. OA Nos.761201g, 79/2018,81/2018 and 82/20218 filed before DRT, Visakhapatnam have been decreed.

¶19

Right of applicant's arguments was forfeited vide order dated 03.07.2024. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. Perused the material documents brought on record.

¶20

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent bank reiterated the version as in the reply statement. While relying on the documents annexed to the reply statement, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA. N*"

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

sA No.182/2022

¶23

Now, the^{points that arise for consideration are:-}

¶24

i) Whether the^{Apptica4t has made out any valid} groini to t"t asiae^{the proceedings against the sA} Zchedule ProPertY^as PraYed^for?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):-

¶27

. Admittedly,^{there was defaultin repayment' The applicantwas} served with^{demand notice vide copy of postal acknowledgementcard} dated 04.11.2015.^{The possessionnotice was personally served on her'} Respondent^{bank also filed copy of publication of possessionnotice in} English and^{Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers and copy of} photographs as^{proof of affixture'No violation of Rules8(1) and 8(2) of} the Rules of^{2002 is found.}

¶28

B. The^{contention on violationof Rules 8(5)' 8(6) or 9(1) needs no} consideration^{since the sale did not materializeon 24'08'2022 pursuant} to e-auction^{sale notice dated 02'08'2022'}

¶29

The applicant^{has utterlyfailed to make out any valid ground to} set aside the^{possessionnotice and accordinglySA is liable to be} dismissed,

¶30

Point No.(iil:-

¶31

In the result,^{the presentSecuritization} Aoolication fails and^is hereby dismissed. 4w"

¶32

4of4

¶33

sANo.LB2/2bzz

¶34

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

¶35

(^'!!-to * .., .Tigtafion 2y jtu ,:,.cor:ec_tgd, sryned and pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the 26,^ day of March. 2O2S). "^{-- --}

¶36

.1,,'l , ."' ',..] '-t." (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

¶38

---+

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohan Babu Vuppu versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Tammisetti Subbarao Civil Contractor

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs.Asma Begum

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Gote Consultants

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Preet Work Constructions

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S M P Enterprises