Dismissed

Ms SIta Trading v. Union Bank of India

DRT29 Oct 2025SA/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Securitization Application filed to challenge Section 13(2) and 13(4) notices and physical possession action under Section 14 rejected. Court found no violation of statutory provisions or rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Ms SIta Trading versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.219 OF ZO24

¶5

M/s Sita Trading Rep by its Proprietor Sri G. Sai Krishna Kishore S/o late G.P. Reddaiah Aged 48 years, Occ:Business R/o Plot No.71, Sai Sadan Road No.72, Prashasan Nagar Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033

¶6

Versus

¶7

.......Applicant.

¶8

Union Bank of India ARB Branch, rep by its Authorized Officer S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P.S.N. Ravindra

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. Srinivasa Rao Chakrala

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare the notices issued under Sec.13(2) and Sec.13(4) by the respondent bank as non est in law and also to declare the action of respondent bank to take physical possession of the application schedule property pursuant to orders dated 04.02.2024 in CI.MP No.286/2024 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as contrary to law, illegal and --)nD-^ot9 arbitrary. i,/'r,

¶14

PaBe 2 of6

¶15

sA No'219/2024

¶16

The case^{of the applicant,in briefis that the applicantavailed} PCL Limit of^{Rs.5 croreswhich was subsequently convertedto Rs 4} crores^{OD limit,CMTCC of Rs 25 lakhs, home loan of Rs'65 lakhsand} vehicle loan^{of Rs.22 lakhs from the respondentbank against} mortgage of^{applicatlon schedule property'Applicant had been} serviclng^{the payments without fail However due to pending} clearance^{of a few export bills amounting to Rs 2 09 crores and} severe^{competition in the business,the applicant couldnot paysome} instalments^{as a result account became NPA' The demandnotice} dated 04.06.2018^{doesnot containthe requisite particulars such as} NPA date,^{bifurcation of principleand interest amounts as per} Sec.13(3).^{The possessionnoticedated30 08 2018 was not served'} affixedandpublishedintwoleadingnewspapers.challengingthe auctlon^{sale, apPlicant filed SA No 491/2018 and the auction sale of} schedule^{property failedon five occasions'The upfront amountof} Rs.26 lakhs^{under OTSproposal was returned after fourteenmonths} and in the^{secondoTS proposaldated 10 05 2023 the applicantpaid} Rs.25lakhsasupfrontamount.Afterpendingtheproposalforfifteen months^{respondent bank rejectedand the amount is still wlththe} bank. Orders^{in CrlN4PNo.28612024 were obtained withoutdisclosing} real facts. The^{applicant is 75 yearsold and stayingin theschedule} property. Respondent^{bank failed to follow provisionsunder} Secs.13(2), 13(3),^{13(4), 14 and Rules 3, 8(1) and 8(2) of the} Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 ("Rules" hereinafter)'} Hence the SA.

¶17

The respondent^{bank filed replystatement along with} documents.^{The submissions,briefly, are that after enjoyingvarious} credit facilities, the^{applicant failed to repay the same as per agreed} terms and hence^{account wasclassifiedas NPA and Securitization} /(Yg,^9 , (./ 'ttt "

¶18

Page 3 of 6

¶19

SA No.219/2024

¶20

proceedings have been initiated. The respondent bank also filed OA No.868/2018 against the applicant and also filed OAs against M/s Sita Logistics and M/s Neo Organics. The demand notice issued with all requisite details, the NPA date was mentioned as 31.05.2018. After receiving the demand notice dated 04.06.2018, the applicant did not come forward to pay the amounts and hence possession notice u/s 13(4) was lssued, sent the same by registered post to the applicant, published in 'Manam' and 'Financial Express' newspapers on 05.09.2018 and also got afFixed on secured asset. The applicant having filed SA 49L/20L8, failed to comply the conditional order. He filed WP No.2846 of 2019 wherein no interim order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The authorized officer of the bank filed Sec.14 application before the learned CMM and vide orders 25.01.2019 an advocate commissioner has been appointed in Crl.MP No.4/2019 for taking physical possession and commissioner could not take physical possession for want of police assistance. The applicant set up a person and got filed a criminal complaint against bank officials under SC/ST (POA) Act challenging the erstwhile Corporation bank Chief Manager filed Crl.MP wherein interim orders were passed. The WP No.10355/2019 challenging the Sec.14 proceedings was dismissed as infructuous on 16.07.2019 and WP No.5846/2019 was dismissed on 12.03.2019 as auction did not materialize. The respondent bank filed Crl.MP No.286/2024. The OTS is not a matter of right. The OTS proposal for Rs.5.02 crores was declined as not viable. Applicant also got flled SA 90/2019 through an alleged tenant which was dismissed for default. The applicant has been dragging on the litigation for more than five years on pretext or the other. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

PaBe 4 of⁶

¶22

sA No.219/2024

¶23

Representative of^{tearned counsel for the applicant reported} that written arquments^{may be treated as oral arguments'Heard} learned counsel^{for the respondent bank Perused the written} arguments filed^{by learned counsel for both parties along withthe} material documents^{placed on record.}

¶24

During the course^{of arguments,learned counsel for the} respondent bank^{reiterated the versionas in the replystatement'} According to him, the^{respondentbank has strictlyfollowedthedue} procedure of law. The^{applicant is due morethanRs'10 crores to the} bank which is^{publicmoneyand he has been draggingon the} litigation on one^{pretextor the other'Whilereferringto the} documents^{placed on record as proof of complianceof due procedure'} learned counsel^{sought for dismissal of the SA.}

¶25

The^points for consideration^{are as follows : -}

¶26

i) Whether the appticant^{made out any valid ground to} quash any of the measures of the^{respondent against the} sA schedule ProPertY,^as PraYed^for?

¶27

ii) To what relief?

¶28

Point No.(i):

¶29

The facts not in dispute^{are that the applicant availed various} credit facilities against^{creation/extension of mortgage of application} schedule^property and^{committed default' Hence NPA classification of} loan account cannot^be termed^{as lllegal.He also filed anotherSA} No.49U2018 challenging the auction^{noticesbesides filing Writ} Petitions.

¶30

The demand notice dated^{04.06.2018issuedby the erstwhile} Corporation Bank^(now Union^{Bank of India) displaysthe facility-wise} outstanding dues with break-up ot^{principalaztnteteiLcomponents} (/'-s*

¶31

Page 5 of6

¶32

SA No.2t9/2024

¶33

till 31.05.2018, property description etc. Hence there is no truth in the contentions of the applicant that demand notice does not disclose the details. However, it is not the case of the applicant that he issued objections to the demand notice as per right available under Sec.13(3A) of the Act, 2002. Hence the demand notice cannot be called in question and accordingly contention regarding demand notice is denied.

¶34

The documents annexed to the reply statement amply prove that the possession notice was sent by the registered post, received by applicant and others, and one'G. Suguna Lakshmi who is party to the demand notice, personally received the possession notice. The possession notice dated 30.08.2018 was pubtished on 05.09.2018 in Telugu and English newspapers and affixed on secured asset. i find no violation of Sec.13(4) and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of Rules of 2002.

¶35

Being secured creditor, the respondent bank is entiued under Sec.14 of the Act, 2OO2 to approached learned CMM/DM for appointment of advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. There is no illegality or irregularity in such action.

¶36

the 11. The OTS proposal of applicant has been rejected by respondent bank. OTS is a commercial decision of the banks and hence it cannot be a matter of dispute in Sec.17 application.

¶37

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the measures under Secs,13(2) and 13(4) of the Acqand the action to //W,,";'* (/

¶38

Page⁶ o'6

¶39

SA No'219/2024

¶40

take^{physical possessionof the SA scheduleproperty' AccordinglySA} is llable to^{be dismissed'}

¶41

Point No.(ii):

¶42

In the^{result, the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶43

consequently.^{the InterlocutoryApplicationspending'if any'} shall stand^closed.

¶44

15, No order^{as to costs.}

¶45

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload^{in the officialwebsite.}

¶46

(Typed to my dictotion by^{thePS, corrccted,signed and pronounced by me in the opencoutt on this} the 2l doy^{ol O.tobe420251.}

¶47

ffiw,,., PRESIDING^OFFICER

Ms SIta Trading v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ms SIta Trading 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

Similar cases

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v N Narendra Kumar

Mrs Nidamanuri Swaroop Rani versus Axis Bank

Magbul Jan versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Rayalaseema Bio Bags.

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus Veluru Viswanatha Naidu

Uco Bank versus Sri Pankaj Kumar Bhutoria