Dismissed

Sri Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Feb 2025SA/203/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's SARFAESI Act application as infructuous because the bank had withdrawn the specific demand, possession, and auction notices upon which the cause of action arose. The court held the applicant cannot amend the application to challenge subsequent notices.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous due to withdrawal of cause of action; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DA-['ED'l-lllS'f t{f: 17 ttt DAy OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.2OS/2C22

¶4

Sri KowuriSubbi lk:ddy, S/o Sri Gangi lReddy, aged 79 years, D.No. 16l A, Mulanka village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

UnionBank of India, Bhimavaram branch, D.No.4- 1- l, IIotcl Sarovar Complcx, J.P.Road, Bhimavaram District West Godavari, A.P.-534202.

¶8

Sri TammanapudiVenu Gopala Reddy, S/o Sri Rami Reddy, D.No.4-26, MulaUpparagudem, Shantinagar, Pcdalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.521344. ... Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Srl B.Sriniuasa Red.d.y

¶10

counselfor TsrRespondent tlank ; sn v. sethumad.haua Rao 11^TEB 1. The Applicant iilcd t present tion Application u/s.17 of the Securitization'^; of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SeC t, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging rhr: e Auction sale Notice dt.1g.or.2022 issued by the 1"t

¶11

sA203/2022

¶12

Respondent Bank fixing the date of auction on 24.Og.2O22 against the schedule propertics.

¶13

¶14

The lst Responclent Bank filed detailed reply resisting the above application.

¶15

¶16

During the pr:ndcncy of the SA, the 1st Respondent Bank filed a memo stating that thcy havc rnithdrawn the demand notice, Possession notice and also auction sale notice dt.l,g.OZ.2022 fixing the date of auction on 24.Og.2O22 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA as infructuous.

¶17

¶18

Ld' counscl lirr thc Applicant filed rheir reply/objections in response to the memo filed by the 1st Respondent Bank by contending that subsequent to the withdrawal of the demand notice, possession notice and salc noticc by thc 1st Respondent Bank, the Bank issued fresh posscssiolt noticc 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

Heard both the [,d. counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the point that arise for consid"eration is whether the sA i liable to be dismissed as infructuous?

¶21

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the that the as per the interim conditional order the Applicant had deposited thc l^stRespondent Bank, so, the 1"t W'"1Tr[ttq6,.afl thesaid amount. I B .,E1 Vi;u,

¶23

sA2O3/2O22

¶24

As per the record, it is clear that at the time of granting interim stay, this Tribunal directed the Applicant to deposit certain amounts into the loan account u,ith thc l"t Respondent Bank. so when the Applicant has depclsited the said amount in loan account, the question of directing the 1"t Respondent Bank to return the said amount does not arise.

¶25

The instartt Sn is filcd basing on the cause of action arouse subsequent to the demand notice and possession notice issued by the 1st Respondent Bank. so, when the lst Respondent Bank has withdrawn thc verysaid demand notice, possession notice and sale noticc isst-tcd b1' Lhcnr, no oausc of action survives in the SA and so, the Applicant cannot amend the SA for challenging the fresh notices issued by the Rcspondent Bank subsequent to filing of SA. In case, the l"t Respondent Bank issues any fresh demand notice, possession notice or sale noticc, it is always open for the Applicant to file fresh SA challenging thcsaicl noticcs. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that thc SA is not infructuous, is untenable.

¶26

so, in view of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that sA 20312022 is liablc to bc dismissed as infructuous as no cause of action survives.

¶27

In. the result, sA 20312022 is dismissed as infructuous. The Respondcnt ilank is at libcrl.y to initiate fresh proceedings by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 against the schedule property. It is always open to the Applic e said proceedings in case, there are any violatigffqgon ,st^{RespondentBank.} fiy

¶28

i: J- il J^{1t FFR ?rrzi} : !r h4rt a it*$ Wffi!,r#

¶29

sA20312022

¶30

Consequently, thc Intcrlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposcd ol'. No order as to costs.

¶31

Communicatc a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the priuute secrelary, transcibed. bg her, corrected., signed and pronounced bg me intLrc open court on *is h" j'7,t,4eg of t,ebruiry, dOilli.'

¶33

sd/(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

tu%
{ rEB il6 [ii
H

¶35

'.v:' ,-ffiff;fillfii,,,

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