In a securitization application challenging possession notices and court proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal held that the applicant had constructive knowledge of notices. Finding no procedural illegality in service or publication, it dismissed the application.
Securitization Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), t4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No.204 Or 2023 Mr. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o R. Bal Reddy, Aged 53 years Flat No.405, 4tn Floor, Male Shalini Residency, H.No.12-5-33 /t & 12_5_33/t/A Plot No.16/4, Survey No.221, Vajayapuri Colony South Lallaguda, Secunderabad-aOO 017
Versus
.......Applicant.
Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch #249/3RT, 1't Floor Main Road, SR Nagar Hyderabad-500 038
.. . .Respondent.
Counsel for.the Appticants : Mr. Ramesh Anand M G
Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. A.V.S.S. prasad
-:ORDER:-
?age 2ol 4
SA No'204/2023
initiatedsecuritizationproceedings' on06'04'2023 'advocate commissionercame to the scheduleproperty and demandedvacant possession citingwarrantfrom learned CMM Court and possession notice dated28'08'2020' Applicant neverreceived noticesunder Secs.13(2)and 13(4) of the Act' Opportunitywas not given under Sec.13(3A)to raise objections' The possession notice was neither affixedon secured asset nor published in two newspapers' The action underSec.14 withoutfollowingdue procedure is illegal' Hence this SA.
page 3 of 4
sA No.20412023
ii) To what relief?
Point No.(i):
B. A perusal of material documents filed by the respondent bank along wlth reply statement reveals that demand notice was personally received by the applicant on 20.03.2019. The applicant addressed a letter dated L2.04.2023 to the respondent bank requesting for OTS for Rs.26 lakhs wherein he categorically referred to the earlier ors offer dated 22.08,2022 that was subsequent to issuance of possession notice. Thus, the applicant had constructive knowledge of the notices and he cannot plead non-service of notices. Further, the applicant did not choose to raise objections after he personally received the demand notice hence the question of deprivation to raise objections under Sec.13(34) does not arise. The possession notice was published within stipulated time and affixed on secured asset as per publication copies and photographs annexed to reply statement. I find no infraction of Secs.13(2), 13(34) or 13(4) of the Act and Rutes B(1) and B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Page 4 of4
5A No.20412023
commissionerwarrant' I learned XXIIACMMand obtained advocate find absolutelyno illegality in such action'
Point No.(ii):
12' Consequently,Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.No orderas to costs'
upload in theofficialwebsite.
(Typed to my dictotionby thePS,corrected, signedond pronounced by mein the opencourt on this the 29'h doy ofApril,2025).
?6o"$
ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the suit schedule property?
To what relief the application should be adjourned?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Venkat Ram Reddy
Union Bank of India
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
