Dismissed

vishnu kumar c v. Canara Bank

DRT2 Sept 2025SA/19/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea to quash the respondent bank's notice and subsequent measures, including physical possession of the secured property, holding the bank complied with the statutory procedure under the SARFAESI Act and applicable rules.

What the court decided

AI extract

vishnu kumar c versus Canara Bank — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{O2NDDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No'19OF 2025}

¶5

Vishnu Kumar ChokkavaraPu S/o^gouri Shankar^ChokkavaraPu Age 48^years, Occ:Business Ro H.No.7-1-396/2/ t0/^{L0, L2l A} MGI-H, BK Guda, SR^Nagar Hyderabad, Telangana

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Canara Bank Rep by its Authorized^Officer Office: Secunderabad Patny Circle, Hyderabad Telangana-74

¶9

. . . ResPondent

¶10

Counsel for the^APP|icant : Mr. Arunn MarriPeddi

¶11

Counsel for ResPondent : Mr. Gampa Rangaiah

¶12

-:8-D-E-B:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s L7} of the securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of security^{Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to declare the^{measuresof respondent pursuantto vacate} notice dated 27.L2.2024^{in Crl.MP No.t49Ll2O24on the file of} learned III ACMM,^{Nampally againstthe application schedule property} as null and void,

¶14

The case of^{the applicant, in brief, is that he offered the} application schedule^{property as security for the loan availed by M/s} vijayarama Agro Traders^{representedhimself and one cheedhara} N*"P

¶15

Page 2 of4

¶16

sA No.19l202s

¶17

Veeranna as partners. Respondent bank did not accept to regularize the account. The demand notice is defective. possession notice dated was neither published nor affixed on property. The objections of applicant were not considered. The family of applicant is residing in the property. Action of respondent bank in taking physical possession is arbitrary. Hence this SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that in compliance of conditional stay order passed by this Tribunal in IA No.1222025, the respondent bank did not execute the Warrant in Crl.Mp No.1497/2024. However, applicant failed to comply the order. The applicant already challenged the possession notice by filing SA No.345/2024 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.01.2025 by the Tribunat while uphotding the measures of the respondent bank. The mutual understanding between the applicant and another has nothing to do with the loan recovery. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Representative of learned counsel reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for respondent. Perused the material papers brought on record.

¶20

During the course oF the arguments learned counsel for the respondent bank referred to the documents annexed to the reply statement and submitted that the respondent bank has followed due procedure as prescribed in the Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder, the contention of applicant on possession notice was already rejected by the Tribunal while dismissing the SA No.345/2024, the Warrant was not executed in view of the interim conditional order passed by the Tribunal and that the SA is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶21

Page 3 of⁴

¶22

SA No.19/2025

¶23

The points for consideration^{are as follows : -}

¶24

i) Whether the^{applicant madeout} .any^{valid ground. to} quash the action of^{respondentbank includingtaking} physical possession of^{the application scheduleproperty} as PraYed for?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

A^perusal of copy^{of order dated 06'01'2025 passedby this} Tribunal in SA No.345 12024^{makes it clear that the respondentbank} complied with^{the provisions of Secs'13(2), 13(4) of the Act read with} Rules 8(1) and 8(2)^{of the Rules of 2002'Hence the sameissues} cannot be reagitated.

¶28

S.Asinformedbythelearnedcounselfortherespondentbank' pursuant to interim conditional^{order dated 10'01'2025 passedby} this Tribunal in IA^{No.127/2025,it did not proceedto execute the} WarrantissuedinCrl,MPNo.L4gl/2o24.However,itisheldthatthe respondent bank^{being securedcreditor is entitled under Sec'14 of} the Act, 2002 to^{approach the learnedCMM/DM to take physical} possession of the secured asset^{and no illegality or irregularitycan be} attributed,

¶29

g.InVieWoftheseobservatlons,itisconcludedApplicantfailedto makeoutanyvalidgroundtosetasideanyofthemeasuresofthe respondent bank^{accordinglySA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

In the result, the^{SecuritizationApplicatjgl fails and is hereby} dismissed. rcO

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

sA No.1912025

¶34

ConsequenUy, Interlocutory Applications stand closed,

¶35

pending, if any, shall

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

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

¶38

(Typed^to my dictotion by the ps, corrected, siqned ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02"" doy of September, 2025).

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

vishnu kumar c v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

vishnu kumar c v. Canara Bank

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

Ananthapur Agro Food and Beverages versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. S S Engineering

D Chandra Sekhar versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Catalog It Solutions Private Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Shaik Pasha

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi