Dismissed

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi v. Union Bank of India

DRT25 Jul 2025SA/221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act challenging a statutory sale notice, the applicant alleged procedural violations including non-servicing of mandatory notices. The court found the dem and and possession notices were duly served and published. Since the scheduled e-auction had not taken place, the proceedings were declared infructuous, and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed as infructuous and devoid of merit.

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India — Arbitration | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TWENryFIFTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATIoN APPLICATIoN No. 221 oF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Super Market D. No. Stitt - 4, Rep by its proprietor Mrs. Kavali Maltika, plot No. 303 V_. V. Naga r, ca yatri naga r, Al la pu r Borabanda-500 018.

¶7

Mrs, Kavali Mallika 5/o Mr. Eswara Reddy Kavali Aged about 41 years Occ: Business, Ftat 1Os Sri Nilaya Sterling Court-2 Ravindra Co-op Housing Society Madhapur-5000A1.

¶8

Mr. Eswara Reddy Kavali Aged about 50 years Occ: Business, Flat los Sri Nilaya Sterling Coutt-2 Ravindra Co-op Housing Society Madhapur-500097.

¶9

.......Applicants.

¶10

And

¶11

Union Bank of India 1356, Kavuri H ills Branch Plot No.10, 76 Sai Nagar Ayyappa Society Road Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.

¶12

......Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent

¶14

Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj. Mr. A,V.S.S. Prasad. fiy:e.*

sA,22tl2023

-:9-B_DEB:-

The Applicants filed the^{present Securitisation Application u/s} 17 of the Securitization^{and Reconstructionof Financial Assets} and Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct, 2002(hereinafter} referred to as "SARFAESI^{Act 2002") assailinge-auction sale} notice dated 11.05.2023^{issued on 27.03.2023 and all other} measures taken by the^{respondentbankagainst the} Application schedule ProPerty.

¶19

The case of the applicant^{in brief,is that applicants availed} loan facilities to a tune of^{Rs.97,55,106.21Ps during the year} 2}lg by creating security^{interest over the SA schedule} property. Applicant No.3 stood as^{guarantorand mortgagor} to the loan. The^{principal borrower approachedthe respondent} bank seeking time for repayment of^{loan amount due to} financlal instabllity. However,^{respondent bank actedin haste} and issued the impugned notice without^servingthe mandatory notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act^{read with} Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. Respondent allegedly claiming abnormal charges and excessive interest contrary to RBI guidelines. Respondent bank has not furnished any details of amount/statement of account as stipulated under the Act. Respondent has not established any deficiency in the market value of the secured assets due to which it would sustain any loss. The e-auction notice has been issued without following due procedure. ,4%r'9

¶20

,4%r'9

¶21

sA,22tl2o23

¶22

Respondent bank filed reply statement. The submissions of the respondent bank in brief are; applicant No.1 is borrower, applicant No.2 is its proprietor and applicant No.3 husband of applicant No.2 is the guarantor and mortgagor to the loan facilities availed by applicant No.1. Consequent to default in repayment, the loan account became NpA on 15.11.2022 and respondent bank initiated securitisation proceedings by issuing demand notice on 19.L7.2022 to start with and thereafter possession notice dated 31.01.2023. The demand notice has been sent to the borrower/mortgagor by registered post. The possession notice dated 31.01.2023 has been served on the applicants 2 and 3 in person. The possession notice has been affixed on the secured asset and publtshed in Mana Telangana, Tellugu Daity and Hindu Engtish Daily on 03.02.2023. Respondent bank issued redemption notice dated 27.02.2023, followed by sate notice dated 27.03.2023, fixing the auction date as 11.05.2023 the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the applicants.^publication of sale notice was taken out in Hindu, English Daily and Sakshi, Telugu Daily on 05.04.2023. However, the auction could not take place on 11.05.2023. Applicants have not raised any objections to the demand notice u/s 13(2). Applicants are not disputing the outstanding amount. Therefore, respondent bank took steps as per law for recovery of dues when the applicants committed default in repayment as per the agreed terms. As such, the SA deserves to be dismEsed0$.,f rtt,

¶23

sA.22Ll2023

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants^prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank. Perused the material brought on record.

¶25

Now the points that arise for adjudication are:-

¶26

i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the e-auction sale notice dated 27.03.2023 issued under the provisions of Securitisation Act?

¶27

iil To what relieJ?

¶28

Point No. (i):

¶29

During the hearing held on 28.0L.2O25, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank reported that auction scheduled on 11.05.2023 has not taken^place. Accordingly, the SA becomes infructuous and the contentions over the e- auction sale^proceedings need no consideration.

¶30

In response to the applicants contentions over violation of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and Rules B(1) and 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, respondent bank placed on record photocopies of demand notice dated 19.tL.2022, postal registration receipts, possession notice dated 31.01.2023, publication in two newspapers and affixture on secured assets vide material papers at pages 2 to 10 annexed to the reply statement. While applicants No.2 and 3 have put their signatures on the possession notice in token of receipt of the same, applicant No.2 acknowledged receipt of demand notice in-rerson on

/'M.or't^ E) (-/

sa.22L/2O23

behalf of applicant No.1. Therefore, I do not find any violation of provisions of sections 13(2) and 13(a) by the respondent bank.

¶35

Since the auction sale pursuant to sale notice dated 27.03.2023 has not taken place, the issues relating to the sale proceedings are not taken up for adjudication ln this SA.

¶36

In view of the foregoing observations, applicants failed to make out any valid ground to interdict the securitisation proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property. Accordingly, the SA is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38

In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload in official Web Site.

¶41

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on thls the 2sth doy of July,2025). ( IP'

¶42

SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Milligram Laboratories

Central Bank of India versus Lachu Cement Bricks Unit

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammed Tahir

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

K Padmavathi and K P Murugesan versus Union Bank of India