Dismissed

Sri Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Feb 2025SA/200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SARFAESI Act security application proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application as infructuous because the bank had withdrawn its demand, possession, and auction notices. The court held that the cause of action for the application did not survive such withdrawals, precluding amendment to challenge subsequent notices.

What did the court decide?

SA 200/2022 dismissed as infructuous; Respondent Bank at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

Sri Kovvuri Subbi Reddy versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE I TiH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.200/2022

¶4

Sri KowuriSubbi Reddy, S/o Sri Gangi Reddy, aged 79 years, D.No. 16/A, Mulalanka viilage , Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.p.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versas

¶7

Union tsank of Lndia, Bhimavaram branch, D.No.4- 1- 1, Hotel Sarovar Complex, J.P.Road, Bhimavaram District West Godavari, A.p.-534202.

¶8

Sri GoluguriSubbi Reddy, S/o Sri Kami Rcddy, D.No.4-25l 3,^yadlanka village,

¶9

Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District, A.p..

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for 1't Respondent l3ank Respondent No.2

¶12

Sri B. Sriniuasa Reddy Sri V. Sethumadhaua Rao Exparte

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant li nt Sccuritisation Application u/s. l7 of the Securiti ction of Financial Assets and Enfo Int 2OO2 (SARFAtrSI Act, 2OO2) c Auction salc N dt.19,O7 .2022 issued by the lst Responrl ri,ty' rfSBJffi" aJ, f auction on 24.O8.2022 against the sch

¶15

sA20012022

¶16

The 1"1 Respondent llank filed detailed reply resisting the above application.

¶17

During the pcndency of the SA, the 1"t Respondent Bank liled a memo stating that thr:y havc withdrawn the demand notice, Possession notice and also auction sale notice dt.lg.OT.2022 fixing the date of auction on 24.08.2022 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA as infructuous.

¶18

Ld. counscl ftrr the Applicant filed their reply/objections in response to the memo filed by the lst Respondent Bank by contending that subsequent to the withdrawal of the demand notice, possession notice and sale notice by the 1st Respondent Bank, the Bank has again issucd p<tsscssion notice and sale notice and challenging the said notices, the Applicant filed interlocutory applications for amendment of the SA and the said applications are pending and in view of the same, SA is not infructuous.

¶19

5' Heard both the Ld. Counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the point that arise for consideration is whether ttrc sA is liable to be dismissecl as infructuous?

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant argued that the as per the interim conditional order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Applicant had deposited thc congffifii with the 1"t Respondent Bank, so, the 1st l?espon .cd to refund the said amount. 6fl$r6s; ,Wffil

¶22

sA20012122

¶23

7 ' As per the record, it is clear that at the time of granting interim stay, this Tribunal dirccted the Applicant to deposit certain amounts into the loan account with the lst Respondent Bank. so when the Applicant has deposited the said amount in loan account, the question of directing the 1st Respondent Bank to return the said amount does not arise.

¶24

The instant SA is filed basing on the cause of action arouse subsequent to the demand notice and possession notice issued by the 1st Respondcnt uank. So, when the 1st Respondent Bank has

¶25

withdrar,vn [hc vcrysaid demand notice, possession notice and sale notice issued by them, no cause of action survives in the SA and so, the Appiicant cannot amend the SA for challenging the fresh notices issued by the Respondent Bank subsequent to filing of SA. In case, the 1st Respondent llank issues any fresh demand notice, possession notice or salc no1.icc, it is always open for the Applicant to file fresh SA challenging the said notices. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that the SA is not infructuous, is untenable.

¶26

So, in vieu,ol'LLrc circumstances, I am of the opinion that sA 2OO 12022 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous as no cause of action survives.

¶27

In. thc rcsult, sA 2oo 12022 is dismissed as infructuous. The Respondent llank is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2Q.OZ...: gt tne schedule property. It is always open to the e said proceedings in case, there are any st Respondent Bank.

¶28

17 F[82ffi

¶29

sA200/2022

¶30

Consequently, the Inl.erlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall

¶31

stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the Priuate secretary, transcribed. bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in ttLe open court orr this h" | 7rh4qg of llebruiry, ZOZS1,.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

1 I FIB 2rfi

¶37

rRrf+oPY
Vz,
tsc,.. Regltr/ttr
AATI, HYOEFAEAD'

¶38

Sri Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kovvuri Subbi Reddy 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt D Geetha Bharath versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Mr Abdul Raheem Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

Mr Abdul Hafeez Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ssr Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/s. Maruthi Oil Stores and Electrical Parts

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Rishabh Plastic