Dismissed

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi v. Canara Bank

DRT10 Nov 2025SA/200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside auction proceedings. The Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish valid grounds for quashing the enforcement action initiated by the bank against the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending if any stand disposed of.

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE l OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No. 2OO./2c.24

¶5

Smt. Gorripati padma Tulasi W/o. Ramesh Gorripati, Aged Years, Occ: Housewife, R/.o.. Flat no.305, Tara-1, g-3_22g, Srinivasa Vitlage, yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank MCB Hyderabad Branch

¶9

H.No.3-5-874 lt9 /t to 3, Opp: D-Mart, Near Old MLA Quarters, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-50OO29 Rep.by authorized Officer

¶10

M/s. Nthree Ancillary Services LLp firm, Rep.by its partners, Regd. Office: 7-LT-4/3, Flat no.3, Kirlampudi Layout, Chinna Waltair, Visakhaptnam, A.P-530017.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondents

¶12

T. Sidhar Reddy K.V. Nagesu.tara Rao

¶13

Respondents

¶14

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded to Website on

¶15

19.09.2025 10.11.2025 10.11.2025.

¶16

The Applicant Application under section 17 of the SARF. e Notice dated, 24.04.2024 issued by the 1 auction of the schedule property on 05.06

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant is the Guarantor for the due repayment of the loans

¶18

SA. No.200/2024

¶19

availed by 2na Respondent from the 1st Respondent Bank and has mortgaged the schedure propert5r as securit5r for the said roans and the Applicant was informed that the 2"d Respondent has been paying the loan amounts regularly to the lst Respondent Bank. while so on 2o.os.2o24 some persons, claiming to be recovery agents, along with the intended purchasers came to the schedule property and through them the Applicant came to know that the lst Respondent issued Sa-le Notice dated 24.04.2024 fixing the auction of the schedure property on os.06.2024. The lst Respondent Bank fixed the reserve price of the schedure property at a very low price than the market value. The l"t Respondent Bank failed to serve 30 days prior Sale Notice on the Applicant. The l"t Respondent Bank has failed to issue two separate notices under Rule g(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules, 2002. The lst Respondent Bank has failed to affix the sale Notice on the schedule property and has also railed to publish the said Sale Notice in two leading newspapers. The 1st Respondent Bank has failed to issue possession Notice as per the law and publish the said notice in two reading newspapers. Hence the S.A.

¶20

The 1st Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the lst Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, the Applicant is the guarantor to the entire loan limits of Rs.400 lakhs availed by 2nd Respondent Company and she created securit5r interest over the application schedule property in favour of the 2"d Respondent. As the borrower fa ed to pay the loan amounts regularly, the loan account became Non-performing Asset (NpA) as on 15.11.2023. The lst Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dated 17 .I1.2O23 to the borrower and the Applicant herein. The Demand Notice on the Applicant and as the amounts borrower/guarantor, the lst Respondent r of the schedule property by issuing . The said Possession Notice was

¶21

duly and "Sakshi" newspapers dated 30.o1 the 1st Respondent Bank issued Rule 8(6) which has been served on

¶22

SA. No.200/2024

¶23

the Applicant, the Sale Notice has been affixed on the schedule property and thereafter published in two newspapers fixing the auction on 05.06.2024. The auction of the property did not materialize and therefore the sale Notice became infructuous. The lst Respondent Bank has followed the procedure laid down under the SARFARSI Act and Rules made there under and as such the S.A is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard Ld' counsel for the Appricant. Ld. counser for the lst Respondent Bank filed his Written Arguments.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶26

whether the Applicant has made any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondents under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶27

ii) To what relieP

¶28

Potnt No.(llr

¶29

During the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant reiterated the version of the Applicant as stated supra. Ld. counsel for the 1"t Respondent Bank in his written Arguments reiterated the version of the Applicant.

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the 2na Respondent company from the l"t Respondent Bank and created securiqr interest over the schedule property in favour of the lst Respondent Bank. The lst Respondent Bank in its reply statement has categorically stated that the 2"d Res the credit facility, committed default and the ified as Non-Performing Asset (NpA). The l"t R the outstanding dues from the borrower and gf6ranqo1 ilty!66"-" otice dated 17.11.2023 u/s.13(2) of the SARFARSI Act. The Applicart disputed the receipt of the said t- borrower and the Applicantdues, the 1"t Respondent Bank took

¶31

SA.No.200/2024

¶32

syrnbolic possession of the schedule propert5r by issuing possession Notice dated 25.Ot.2024 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFARSI Act. The contentions of the Applicant is that the possession Notice has not been issued by the lst Respondent Bank as per law and that the said Possession Notice was not published in two leading newspapers. The lst Respondent Bank in its material documents liled copy of the possession Notice dated 25.01.2024 along with the copies of postal receipts, copies of publication of Possession Notice in "sakshi" and "Times of India" newspapers dated 30.01.2O24 and also copy of photographs depicting the affixture of Possession Notice on schedule property. The said documents amply prove that the l"t Respondent Bank has sent Possession Notice to the Applicant, affixed the possession Notice on the schedule property and published the said notice in two leading newspapers as contemplated under Rules 8(1) and g(2) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶33

,c The Applicant raised various contentions with regard to the Sale Notice i.e., non-service of Sale Notice, non-issuance of two separate notices under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1), non-aflixture of Sale Notice on the schedule property and non-publication of Sale Notice in two leading newspapers and also fixing of reserve price of the schedule property much lower than the market value.

¶34

Even though the lst Respondent Bank filed material documents in order to prove due compliance of procedure under the Act and Rules 2002, while proceeding for the sale of the schedule property, I am not inclined to delve into the said issue, as the auction contemplated by the Bank on 05.06.2024 in pursuance of Sale Notice dated 24.04.2024 has not materialized.

¶35

In view of Applicant has failed to make out any valid proceedings initiated by thg 1"t . r 1'.1 f*h"frff ,filfrfiARF+RSI^{Act against application schedule}

¶36

property. fiordingly, tl-r'is''floint is'answered against the Applicant and in favour

¶37

SA.No.2@/2024

¶38

¶39

1 1' In the result, the present securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, tlre Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictoted to the Privok secrctory, tronsc bed by her, conected, signed ond yonounced by de in the open coutt on this the 1(p (roy of NovembeL 20?l).

¶42

sd/(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

' A-sstaeyr1f|P'\'
not-I Hl',nFnd 8Ac

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi v. Canara 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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Ramala Elizebeth Josephine

Canara Bank versus Konathala Uday Kiran

Idbi Bank versus Sri. Kotha Himatej Reddy

Bank of India versus M/S.Jyothi Medicals

State Bank of India versus 3S Dental Labs

Idbi Bank versus Ms. Nandibotla Sai Lakshmi Manjusha