Dismissed

kuncha lakshmipathy v. Saptagiri Grameena Bank

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/210/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by Kuncha Lakshmipathy challenging the auction process initiated by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank. The court held that the auction was infructuous due to lack of bidders and found no violation of procedural sections.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were closed.

kuncha lakshmipathy versus Saptagiri Grameena Bank — Corruption | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWA o^.tr&[3'J-?,Ltim'^{L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'}

¶3

Securitization Application No.21O OF 2025

¶4

Kuncha Lakshmipathy S/o Kuncha Radha Kiishna Age 49 years. Occ: Business S:l-d.".,.r9t",^{Door No.2/86,RajaStreet} pr.llrcherta Mandal, Chittoor District Mangatampeta, Andhra pradesh 51 71 Z2

¶5

Versus Andhra^pradesh Grameena Bank Pulicherla Branch Rep by its Authorized Siqnatorv Pulicherla Mandal, Chittotr Disirrct Mangalampeta, Andhra pradesh 517172

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

. ...Respondent.

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Arunn Marripeddi

¶9

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr.N Meher prasad

¶10

.:oRDER:-

¶11

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Apptication u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare the action of respondent in pursuance of Fuction notice dated 04.04,2025 fixing auction on 15.05.2025 in respect of application schedule property.

¶12

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that father of the applicant availed loan facility of Rs.4.5 lakhs in 2012 repayabte in eight years by mortgaging the application schedule property as security. By classifying the account as NPA the respondent !ank is forcing to pay /M^s* u/

¶13

Page^{2 of3}

¶14

sA No'210/2025

¶15

the entire^{outstandingat a time lt also refused to regularize the} accountandoTS.Theapplicantisresidinginthescheduleproperty with family^{membersand if it is sold he will be left with no shelter'} Therespondentbankfailedtofollowsecs.l3(2)and13(4)oftheAct, 2002.^{Hence the SA'}

¶16

3.^{The respondentbank filed replystatement along with} documents.^{The submissions'briefly'are that the schedule property} is a commercial^{complex not a residential propertyas alleged The} loan^{account of applicant'sfather becameNPA due to default' as per} RBI^{guidelinesThe applicant never paid overdues so as to regularize} the account.^{The respondent bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2)on} L3.ll.2fll7^{and served on applicant'As no payment wasmade'} resPondent^{bankissuedpossessionnotice dated 15'02 2018 u/s} 13(4)^{of the Act, sent by registered post to applicant'got affixedon} secured^{asset and published in 'sakhsi' and 'IndianExpress'} newspapers.^{Challengingthe earliersale notice dated29'07'2018the} applicant^{filed SA No'336/2018'failed to comply the conditional order} and subsequently^{SA was dismissed The impugnedauction did not} take^{placefor want of biddersThe respondent bank has followed due} procedure of^{law and hence SA is liableto be dismissed'}

¶17

Both learned^{counselreported that orders may be passed based} on record.^{Perusedthe materialdocumentsbrought on record'}

¶18

The applicant^{is sonof late K Radhakrishnaiahwho availed loan} facility from^{the respondent bank against the mortgage of the} application^{schedule property. As the account becameNPA'} respondent^{ban ki n itiated secu ritization or oceeoinss.} fu>b

¶19

Page 3 of 3

¶20

SA No.210/2025

¶21

The impugned auction sale did not materialize for lack of bidders. Hence SA against auction sale dated 15.05.2025 has become infructuous. As far as averment of non-compliancelof Secs.13(2) and 13(4) is concerned, the documents placed o,n record by. the respondent bank would amply prove service of Jemanoyrot'rJe ano possession notice on the applicant, and affixture and publication of the possession. I find no violation of Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002.

¶22

The applicant has not denied the fact of flling SA 336/2018 earlier and failure to comply the conditional order passed therein. The applicant has also not denied non-payment of overdue amount towards regularization of account. He failed to establish any valid ground to quash any of the measures of the res'pondent bank. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Point No.(ii):

¶24

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶25

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶26

(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd doy of October, 2025).

¶27

ffisrb HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

kuncha lakshmipathy v. Saptagiri Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

kuncha lakshmipathy v. Saptagiri Grameena 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

Similar cases

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Venkatesh Palwaya, S/O P Swarajyam