Dismissed

Ms Srivenkateswara Dall Mills v. Union Bank of India

DRT4 Jul 2025SA/184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside auction measures. The Court held the challenge was infructuous as subsequent auctions failed and found sufficient service of notices.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application fails and is dismissed; pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed.

Ms Srivenkateswara Dall Mills versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization Application No.184 OF 2022

¶4

M/s Sri Venkateswara Dall Mills Rep by its Prop. Morimsetty Venkata Ramappa S/o Late Morimsetty Papanna Aged about 68 years Situated at D.No.1/514 and 515 Dharmavaram Road, Kotha Cheruvu Town and Mandal Ananthapuram District

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India Rep by Authorized Officer Kothacheruvu Branch Penukonda Taluq Sri Satya Sai District

¶8

....Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr.P, Balaji

¶10

-:9_8_qEB:-

¶11

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitizatlon and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures taken by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property including e-auction sale notice daled 30.07.2022 fixing auction on 24.08.2022.

¶12

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the respondent bank sanctioned loan against mortgage of SA schedule property. Due to business loss and Covid-19 pandemic, there was irregularity in repayment. After bank had taken action for k"piysical possession, the

¶13

Page 2 of 4

¶14

SA No.184/2022

¶15

applicant filed^{WP Nos.4390 and 16014 of 2022 before Hon'bleHigh} court of Andhra^{Pradesh at Amaravati wherein conditionalorder was} passed which could not be^{compliedfully. Without servingdemand} notice,^{possessionnoticeand without publishingand affixing the} possession notice, the respondent^{bank initiated further action for} sale. E-auction^{sale notice wasalso not served, published and affixed} as^per Rules.^{Hence this SA.}

¶16

The respondent^{bank filed reply statementalong with} documents, The^{averments, in brief, are that the accountwas} classified as NPA^{as per guidelines. The demand notice dated} 23.Og.2020 and^{possession notice dated 13'10'2021 were sent by} registered^post, the^{possession notice was affixed on conspicuous} place of the secured asset^{and got publishedin English and Telugu} newspapers.TheapplicantfailedtosetoutaStowhatprovisions have been violated,^{The SA is liable to be dismlssed'}

¶17

Heard learned^{counsel for the applicant as well as learned} counselfortherespondentbank'Perusedthematerialbroughton record.

¶18

During the^{course of arguments,learned counselfor the} applicant and^{learned counsel for the respondentbank reiterated} their respective^{versionas in the applicationand reply statement'} Learnedcounselforrespondentbankfurtherreiteratedthatthe schedule auction^{on 21.12.2022was not successful.'}

¶19

The^{points for consideration are as follows : -} i) Whether^{the applicant madeout} .any^valid -^ground ' to. ' iuasn the measures initiated by the respondent against ihe Sn schedute ProPertY? ,fu<, 1u'-) - ii) To what relief?

Page 3 of4

SA No.184/2022

Point No.(i):

The auction impugned in the application is dated 24.08.2022 whereas, the respondent bank informed that even subsequent auction scheduled on 21.72.2022 was not successful. Hence the SA becomes infructuous as far as impugned auction sale is concerned.

¶24

As regards service of demand notice is concerned, the respondent bank filed copy of demand notice dated 23.09.2020 which is marked as Ex.A.13 filed in OA No.96/2021 on the file of this Tribunal. Said OA was allowed in favour of the bank in 2023. A perusal of order dated 24.03,2023 reveals that the applicant herein made appearance but did not choose to file opposition, forgone the right to file the same and accordingly he was set ex parte. So, it is clear that the applicant was aware of the demand notice dated 23.09.2020 in 2021 itself but did not choose to raise any objections with the bank and hence he cannot now pretend to be unaware of demand notice. As per material documents annexed to the reply statement, the possession notice dated 73.70.2O2L was served on applicant and others vide postal acknowledgement cards, affixed on secured asset as per photographs and published in English and Telugu newspapers as per publication copies.

¶25

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 under the provisions of the Act, 2002 and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed. I ZVy :,-,/ -^.) L '

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

sA No.184/2022

¶28

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

¶29

Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed.

¶30

No order as to^costs.

¶31

13'Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the^{officialwebsite.}

¶32

(Typed .to my dictotion by the^{PS,corrected,signedond pronouncedby mein the opencourt on this} the o4th doy of^July,2025).

¶33

ffi-rw^ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Srivenkateswara Dall Mills v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Srivenkateswara Dall Mills 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

Uco Bank versus M/S. D a F Industries

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sri Vasavi Industries

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Bhavani Engineering Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bolagoti Kotagala Mallamma

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Kanakadurga Cotton Company

b santosh kumar versus State Bank of India