Dismissed

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Feb 2025SA/201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application instituted under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as infructuous. The court held that the cause of action had ceased to exist since the bank had withdrawn the demand, possession, and auction sale notices that triggered the applicant's application.

What did the court decide?

The application is dismissed as infructuous. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand disposed of without costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEB]'S RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DA"I E I) I'I lIS^'J I I[. 1^'71II DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.z01/2022

¶4

Sri KowuriSubbi l{cdcly, S/o Sri Gangi l{cddy, aged 79 years, D.No. 126 l A, Mulalanka village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.l).

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India, Bhimavaram branch, D.No.4- 1- 1, tlotcl Sarovar Complcx,

¶8

J.P.Road, Bhimatva ram I)istrict.

¶9

West Godavari , A.l>.-534202.

¶10

Sri BokkaBhogcsr,r,ara liao, S/o Anjaneyulu,

¶11

D.No.2-9 8 I t], Mr,r lalanka village

¶12

Kalidindi Manclal , Krishna Dislrict, A.l).. ... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Applicctr-tt Sri B. Sriniuasa Red"clg Counsel for 7"r Resp onde, Sri V. Sethumadhaua Rao Counsel for Responcle 6& i Naga Krishna 6._tt :i!i: A:-ti\ 1. The Applicanr presenl. rsation Application u/s.17 of the Securitizati ion of F-inancial Assets and Enforccmcnt o1' St:d :St Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging thc c Auction sale Notice dt.19.O2.2022 issued by the 1st Respondcnt Ilank fixing the datc of auction on 24.Og.2O22 against the schcdulc propcrrics.

¶14

sA20U2022

¶15

2' The l"t Rcsponclent llank filed detailed reply resisting the above application.

¶16

During the pendency of the SA, the lst Respondent Bank filed a memo stating that thcy have withdrawn the demand notice, Possession notice and arlso auctir>n sale notice dt.lg.O7.2022 fixing the date of auction on 24.tJi.,2022 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA as infructuous.

¶17

Ld. cou,scl 1irr thc Appricant filcd their reply/objections in response to thc me rl(.) i'ir<:tl b.v Lrrr: r"t Rcspo.aent Llank by contending that subsequcr:t to r-he r,l,ithdrawar of the demand notice, possession notice and sale notice by the lst Respondent Bank, the Bank has again issued p.ssession notice and sale notice and chalenging the said noticr:s, thc Applicant filcd intcrrocutory applications for amendmc.l. 01'rhc SA and the said apprications are pending and in view of thc sermc, SA is not infructuous.

¶18

Heard both thc Lcr. counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the point that aise for consid.eration is whether *rc sA is liabLe to be clismissed. as infructuous?

¶20

lbr thc Applicant arguecl that the as per the interim conditional ff.d^{by this Hon,ble Tribunal,the Applicanthad} amount with the l"t Respondent Bank, so, .y be dirccted to refund the said amount.

¶21

1 7 ti.t 20fr

¶22

sA20t/2022

¶23

7 ' As per the record, it is clear that at the time of granting interim stay, this Tribunal r'lircclcd the Applicant to deposit certain amounts into the l<-ran accc>r-r.t wittr thc 1sr Irespondent Bank. So when the Applicant has deposited the said amount in loan account, the question of directing the 1"t Respondent Bank to return the said amount does not arise.

¶24

The insta.t sn is filed basing on the cause of action arouse subsequent to thc demancl notice and possession notice issued by the 1st Respondcnt uank. So, when the 1st Respondent Bank has

¶25

withdrar,r,n thc: vc-r),said clemand notice, possession notice and sale noticc isst-tcri b,' Lltt:tn, no causc of action survives in the SA and so, the Applicant cannot amend the SA for challenging the fresh notices issued by the Respondent Bank subsequent to filing of sA. In case, the 1"t Respondent Ilank issues any fresh demand notice, possession noticc or sarc noricc, ir js ah,r,ays opcn f<lr the Applicant to file fresh sA challenging thc saici noticcs. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that thc sA is not infructuous, is untenable.

¶26

So, in t,icu, ol' Lhc i:rrcumstanccs, I am of the opinion that SA

¶27

2O1 l202'2 is lia.rblc Lc ltc dismisscd as infructuous as no cause of action survives.

¶28

In. the rcsurlt, Sn 20l 12022 is dismissed as infructuous. The Responclcrrt Iliinr< is irr ribcrty to i.itiate fresh proceedings by following thc proccdure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAES**1302 against the schedule property. It is always open allenge the said proceedings in case, there are

¶29

Hi t of thc lsr Rcspondent Elank.

'i i'Pf

i':¹⁷

sA20L12022

consequently, the Intcrlocutory Applications, pending if any, shalr stand disposcd of. No orcler as to costs.

¶34

cornmunical.c a copy ,f this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the Priuale secrelctrll, transcribed. bg her, corrected., signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open coutl orr /hrs 71r. j'.7ti,4qy of l..ebruiry, iOZili.'

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

l, -r
,t'':ffi
;i : IIrEBIIx :
W-

¶39

rRuu.Y
,ffif#::^,,

¶40

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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