Dismissed

Atigadda Shankaramma v. Union Bank of India

DRT7 Apr 2025SA/193/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act challenging the enforcement proceedings initiated by a bank. The court held that the bank proved service of statutory notices, negating the applicant's grievance of non-notice. Since the auction sale did not materialise, the application was dismissed as it became infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application (SA) was dismissed. Interlocutory applications stood closed.

Atigadda Shankaramma versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7rH DAy oF ArRIL, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. L93 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

SmL Atigadda Shankaramma W/o Late A. Reva Reddy Aged about 72 years Ftat No.4, sth Floor H.No. 6-3-1063/504 Khairatabad Hyderabad-500 036

¶7

Also at: H. No. 14-91, Edamma Gadda Gopalpeta Mandal Mahaboobnagar - 509 206.

¶8

.......Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Union Bank of India Rep by its Authorised Officer 6-1-67/ 14, Second Floor Public Garden Road Saifabad, Opp: AP DGP Office Hyderabad.

¶11

M/s. Sri Laxmi Constructions Rep by its Director ChittiVijaya g.eddy B-7-38/1, 3d Floor Laxmi Nilayam Rajreshwari Nagar Old Bowenpally Ranga Reddy Dist.500 011.

....Respondents.

sA 19312022

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent No.7 Respondent No.2

¶16

: Mr. V. Satyanarayana. : Mr. K. Srilatha. : Dismissed.

¶17

-: O-B-DEB:-

¶18

Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.t7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Ad 2002") assailing the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, vide sale notice dated fi,04.2022 fixing the date of auction as 20.05.2022 in respect of SA schedule property.

¶19

The case of the applicant as per the averments of securitisation application, in brief, is that applicant is the guarantor to the extent of her immovable property to the loan availed by respondent No.2 for its business purpose. The 1"t respondent bank has not put the applicant on notice by way of notices under sections 13(2), 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rutes B(1) and 8(2) or Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, before resorting to the sale of the secured asset. Applicant's request for payment of overdue amount has not been considered. The value of the property is worth Rs.1.18 crores. Applicant is willing to redeem the property by paying the reserve price of the mortgaged property.

¶20

1"t Respondent bank filed reply statement. The submissions of the respondent in brief, are that the applicant was served with the demand notice dated 03.08.2019 and the N*possession notice

¶21

sA L9312O22

¶22

dated 16.11.2019. The undelivered postal covers and acknowledgement cards addressed to the applicant are filed with the reply statement. The possession notice has been duly received by the applicant vide postal acknowledgement at page 25 annexed to the reply statement. Since the securitisation proceedings have been initiated as back as in the year 2019. applicant cannot plead that she was not given an opportunity to repay or clear the dues. The possession notice has been published in Velugu, Telugu Daily and Telangana, English daily on 18.11.2019. In fact, applicant suppressed the material fact that she filed W.P.23755 of 2022 against the impugned sale notice dated 77.04.2022 and failed to comply its order in paying 1570 of Rs.1.18 crores.

¶23

5A against 2nd respondent dismissed as applicant failed to take steps to serve notice on the 2nd respondent.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant prayed that orders may be passed on records. Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶25

According to learned counsel for the respondent, the auction sale pursuant impugned sale notice was not materialised hence the SA becomes infructuous. In fact. subsequent attempts for sale the secured assets were also not materialised. As regards the applicant's grievances over non-compliance of procedure as per the^provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules in serving the statutory notices, respondent bank has produced enough material to negate the said contentions. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal or sa, /Y1*f',

¶26

¶27

sAL93l2O22

¶28

Now the^points that arise^{for adjudicationare:} -

¶29

Whether the ApPlicant^madeout any valid ground for^quashingthe measures initiated bY^the respondent bank against^{the SA} schedule properties under^the provisions of Securitisation Act?

¶30

ii) To what reliel?

¶31

Point No.(i);

¶32

Applicant challenged the^{securitisationproceedingsto the extent} of mortgage created over^{her propertyonly. Her contentionthat} she has not been served with the^{demandnotice u/s 13(2) and} possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI^{Act read with Rules} 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security^{Interest (Enforcement) Rules,} 2002 falls flat as the respondent^{bank placed on record sufficient} material to disprove the said allegations^{. As the applicant failed} to make out any valid^ground to^{quasheitherthe demand notice} or the^possession notice, the^{SA is devoid of any merit andis} liable to be dismissed. As stated^{supra,since the auction sale} having not taken^place, nothing^{survives for adjudicationin so} far as the impugned sale notice^{is concerned.}

¶33

Point No.(ii)t

¶34

In the result, the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, Interlocutory Applicqtjpns,^pending if^any,shall stand closed. ffi*

¶36

sA t93l2O2Z

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictoted to the Steno, coffected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the f doy ol Aptil,2o2s).

¶39

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Atigadda Shankaramma v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atigadda Shankaramma 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

Chatakunta Venkata Subbamma versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Silk Screen Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus T Nagabushana Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sadguru Textiles

Icici Bank Limited versus Senapathi Sai Krishna

Canara Bank versus Vedan Infra Project Pvt. Ltd.