Dismissed

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT13 Oct 2025SA/186/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The applicants challenged the bank's enforcement proceedings, including the issuance of a possession and sale notice and an auction. The tribunal noted that the bank had filed evidence demonstrating proper service of notices and publication in newspapers, thereby following the statutory pr

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as the bank had duly followed the procedure under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others versus Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL"I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE ] 3TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.lA6,/20.23'

¶5

M/s. Rishab Plastic, Prop: Mr. Praveen Kedia, Shed No.S, Plot No.85, Part Sy.No.48, 10A Kattedan, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad - 5OO O77 .

¶6

Mr. Praveen Kedia, Aged major, Gender MaIe, S/o. Mr. Sam Sunder Kedia, Sunrise Villa No.150, Near Pillar No.180, Upparpally, Hyderabad - SOO O48.

¶7

.)Mrs. Nisha Kedia, Aged major, Gender: Female, W/o. Mr. Praveen Kedia, Sunrise Villa No.15O, Near Pillar No.18O, Upparpally, Hyderabad - 500 048. Applicants.

¶8

Tersus

¶9

Karur Vysya Bank, Business Banking Unit, 5-8-356 to 362, II Floor, Chirag-Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 OO1.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Srj P. Praueen Kuman
Counsel for the Si G. Krishna Chaitnga.
15.O9.2025
^&s 13.10.2025
+ ,en,..rd *
wha&&T M .I 13.10.2025
i -.-d .i
t. i-a 'Ti \3qTd d-.
Qh,,""4?W
3ffiil1-ry

54.No.186/2023

.:ORDERi

The present application is frled by the Applicants u/s.17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financia-l Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act' 2oo2, challenging the action of Respondent Bank pursuant to possession Notice dt.o8.o2.2023, issued u/s.I3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, including the sale Notice dt.2O.O4.2023, frn..g the auction of the application schedule property on 24.O2.202s.

¶16

The averments made by t},e Applicants in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant is a proprietary concern a,'d sri praveen Ked.ia is the sole proprietor and he established the said concern in the year 2oLZ etd, prior to that he ran the business in the name and style to M/s. Murli pol5rmer Limited, which he ra,. the business successfully by availing loan from the Respondent Bank and basing on that the Respondent Bank has sanctioned Rs.7.50 crores as Term Loan and Rs.2.oo crores as cash credit facility to run the business of the Applicant concern. The securities offered are common to both the ioan accounts. After avaitng the loans, due to non-getting of profits in the industry and covid-19 pandemic, the Applicants could not service the loan accounts and same became NPA. The Respondent Bank, without issuing any notices under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, resorted to take coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act and put the schedule property for auction even by not sen ing notices under Sec.13(2), 13(4), under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, published the e-Auction Notice dt.2O.4.2O23, fixing the auction on 24.05.2023 in the newspapers. Hense, the SA.

¶17

J. The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement denying a-11 the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, Applicant No.2 had availed credit facilities from t}le Respondent Bank for his business in the years 2O1S & 2O2l and Applicant No.3 stood as guarantor for the said loans. In view of irregular palments arrd. outstarrding dues, the loan accounts of the Applints have been 77.2022 and the Respondent Bank has issued, Demand Notice dt.08.02 .2023 artd Notice under Rule the SaIe Notice dt.10.08 .2023. Nl the notices are duly

¶18

SA.No.186/2023

¶19

served on the Applicants and were also duly alfixed and published in the newspapers. The sA filed by trre Applicants is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard the Applicant,s Counsel and perused the Written Arguments filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶21

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶22

Whether the Applicants have made any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶23

ii) To what relief?

¶24

Polnt No.l t

¶25

Admittedly, the Applicant availed credit fac,ities from the Respondent Bank by creating security interest over the application schedure properties and after availing the same, he committed default in repa,rment of the 10an outstanding, which resuited in the classification of the roan account as NpA and initiation of SARFEASI proceedings by the Respondent Bank. It is the contention of the Applicants that, the Respondent Bank without serving any statutory notices on the the Applicants, has proceeded for the sale of the schedule properties. per contra, the Respondent Bank has contended that, it has duly followed the procedure under the SARFAE.I Act while proceeding against the schedule properties, which are the secured assets. To substantiate its contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with its Reply Statement.

¶26

I have gone through the material documents frled by the Respondent Bank. As per the copy of Demand Notice dt.O1.12.2022 filed, by the Respondent Bank, it is very clear that the Appricdnts have personalry received. and acknowredged the Demand Notice. Even the Applicant has acknowledged the Notice dt. Oa.O2.2O2S, which was sent to them by RpAD.

¶27

'i' ,''the also Iiled copy of alhxture of possession Notice on

¶28

&'tr," "."u.6d "ss"tJ also publication of the said possession Noitice in ijep'iStafihard' and 'Mana Telangana, Telugu newspapers

¶29

SA.No.186/2023

¶30

dt'74 'O2 '2023 ' The Respondent Bank has also frred a copy of the pre-Sale Notice dt.o4.03.2o23, issued u/r. g(6) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20O2, along with copies of postal acknowledgements, which amply prove that that the Applicants have received the same. The Respondent Bank has further filed copies of sare Notice dt.77.o7.2023 arong wit,. postal covers and publication of the said notice in the newspapers. with this abundant evidence, the Respondent Bank has proved that it has duly followed the procedure raid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, while enforcing the security interest over the application schedure properties, which are the secured assets to recover its legitimate dues from the borrower/guarantors. I, therefore, do not find any valid grounds established by the Applicants for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule properties. The present SA lacks of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is a,swered against the Applicants and in favour of the Respondent Bank.

¶31

Polnt No.llll"-

¶32

8' In the result, the present securit,ation Application is dismissed. consequenry, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shal stand disposed of. No order as to costs-

¶33

9. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned..

¶34

(:;:t:;ed to the Pivdte secretory, t'onsoibed hy het, coffected, siqned ond p@nounced by ne in the open court on this the r.,th doy ol october,

¶35

sd/{c.^coPrcHAND} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

¶37

w:Tww ^!v?'a{!1#oo

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others v. Karur Vysya Bank

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Abhiramee Medicals

State Bank of India versus M/S. v.N.Garments

State Bank of India versus Mr. Thalari Ramakrishna

M S Balaji Business Corporation versus State Bank of India

1.Smt v Rajamma versus Union Bank of India

Ms Sadhana Constructions and another versus Karnataka Bank Limited