Dismissed

Srinivasa Agencies v. Karnataka Bank Limited

DRT10 Oct 2025SA/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the bank's procedural steps under the SARFAESI Act. Finding that notices were validly served and law followed, the Tribunal held no valid ground existed to set aside the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application failed and is dismissed; Interlocutory Applications stand closed; no order as to costs.

Srinivasa Agencies versus Karnataka Bank Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF OCTOBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.19OF 2023}

¶5

N4/s Srinivasa Agencies Rep by its Prop. Sri V. Dhananjayulu S/o Chenchaiah, Aged^{about39 years} Occ:Business, situated at^{D.No. 10-1} Thondawada Village, Chandragiri^mandal Chittoor District 517¹⁰¹

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Rep by its authorized officer Asset Recovery Management^Branch situated at Plot No.50, srinagar^colony Road No.3, Banjara^Hills ...ResPondent Hyderabad 5OOO73

¶9

Counset for the Applicant^{: Mr. D' Raghavulu}

¶10

Counsel for Respondents^{Bank: Mr. N, Rama Rao}

¶11

-:^qB-9-EB:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to set^aside all^{proceedingsof the respondentbank under} Act, 2OO2 against the^{application schedule propertyincludingsale} notice dated O6,L2,2022.

¶13

Thb case of the applicant,^{in brief, is that he availed OD loan} facility of Rs.9 lakhs^{in 2015 and furtherextended upto Rs.20 lakhsin} 2017 against mortgage of^{application scheduleproperty as security'} Payment was regular till^{August 2020 but due to Covid-19 pandemic} and losses in business,^{applicant^was unableto make payments'} cw,\e

¶14

PaEe 2 of4

¶15

SA No.19/2023

¶16

Respondent bank failed to serve demand notice, possession notice, sale notice, and affix and publish the possession nouce and sale notice. Though the applicant is ready to regularize the account, respondent bank is contemplating to sell the property at cheaper price. Respondent bank filed OS No.7062/2022 before I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati which is pending adjudication. Hence the SA.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly are that due to failure in repayment loan account of the applicant became NpA on 29.08.2020. Securitization proceedings have been initiated by issuing Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 17.11.2021 which was received by the applicant on 26.11.?021. As no payment was made, possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 76.08.2022 and published on 19.08.2022. After obtaining correct valuation u/r 8(5), a sale notice was issued. The respondent bank has followed due procedure of law and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent bank reported that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material brought on record.

¶19

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶20

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures under the Act, 2OO2 including e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022 in respect of the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶21

ii) To what relieQ

Point No.(i):

OY**"

Page 3 oI4

sa No.19/2023

I have^{given considerationto the avermentsmade in the} application and the^{reply statement.Admittedly the applicant} committed default^{in repayment.Henceclasslficationof account as} NPA cannot be^{questioned. The respondent bank filed material} documents along^{with reply statement as per which, the demand} notice dated l7.Ll.2OZL^{and possessionnotice dated L6'oa'2o22} were received by the^{applicantvide copy of postal acknowledgement} cards, the^{possessionnotice was published in 'Prajasakthi' and} 'Business Standard' Telugu and^{English newspaperson 19 08'2022} and^got affixed on^{secured assetas per Proof filed along with IA} No.2138/2025. I flnd^{no violation of Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the Act'} 2OO2 and Rules 8(1)^{and 8(2) of the SecurltyInterest(Enforcement)} Rules,2002.

¶27

It is settled^law that^{parallelproceedingscan be undertakenby} the secured creditor^{under the Act, 2002 againstthe securedasset'}

¶28

Reportedly the impugned^{auctiondid not take placeHence the} issues^{pertainingto undervaluation, service of sale notice, affixture} and^{publication of sale notice need no consideration'}

¶29

In view of the^{above observations, it is concluded that the} applicants have^{failed to make out any valid groundto set aside any} of the measures^{of the respondentbank the Act, 2002 against the} application schedule^{property.AccordinglySA is liable tobe} dismissed.

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

In the result, the^{Securitization} Application fails and^{is hereby} dismissed, fu^o"

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

sA No.19/2023

¶34

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications

¶35

pending, if any,

¶36

shall stand closed.

¶37

L2. No order as to costs.

¶38

13' Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶39

(Typed.to my dictation by the ps, corrected, siqned ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the l,th day ol October, 2O2S).

¶40

ffito"t ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Srinivasa Agencies v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa Agencies v. Karnataka 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Mr. Pokuri Venkateshwar Rao

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Sai Star Cable Network

B Shylender Kumar versus Repco Bank

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Thellajeera Divakar, S/O Chandraiah

The Hongkong and Shanghal Banking versus Mr. Shaik Basheed, S/O Late Ibraheem

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Banda Shravan Kumar