Dismissed

Jallapalli Amaramma v. Punjab National Bank

DRT25 Jul 2025SA/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 77 of the SARFAESI Act seeking to suspend Section 14 proceedings. The court rejected the applicant's claim of fraud regarding illiteracy and signature affixation as unproved, holding that the bank complied with statutory procedures.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed under Section 77 of the SARFAESI Act fails and is dismissed.

Jallapalli Amaramma versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL- II} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED^{THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY'2025}

¶3

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE' B'CoI" L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'} PRESIDiNG^OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION No' 247 OF 2023}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. JallaPalli^Amaramma W/o Dasharatha Aqed 48 Years,^{Gender Female} dcc:Home^{Maker, Plot No'7} -aiina Cotony,^{opp. Eshwapu ri Colony} Aiui ruo.s,'uear^{Maiid,Jaipuri cotgly^^-^} iiit", iiyuth^{Nagar, Hvderabads00068} .. ... ..APPlicant'

¶7

And

¶8

Authorized^{Officer-cum-BranchManager} Punjab National^Bank Circle SASTRA,^{Regency Plaza,}

¶9

Maitri Vihar^Area Gayatri Nagar,^{Plot No.3,Ameerpet} Hyderabad-500038

¶10

M/s Vijaya^Industries nep. riv its^{Proprietor S. RajendraPrasad} plot lto.t2, Sy.No'229, B.N. Reddy^Nagar CherlaPallY,^{Phase-II,Ghatkesar} Medchal District,^{Telangana-500051}

¶11

Sarangula^{RajendraPrasad} S/o S. Lazarus,^{Occ:Business,Male} Plot No.58,^{Modi Bungalow} CherlapallY,^{Phase-II,Ghatkesar} Medchal District,^{Telangana-500051}

¶12

sANo,247l2o23,

¶13

Jattapa Iti VUay yadav S/o Dasharatha Occ:Unemployed, Male 7::!?,a'-Bt:id^{c?!"nv,opp Eshwapuricotonv} K.oad .No.5, Near Majid, Jaipuri Colony Nagote, Hayath Nagar, uyderabad 500068

¶14

Ja Ilapalli Vinesh S,/o Dasharatha Occ: Unemployed, 14ale 7:! !?,.7,-Bt!?d^{cotony, opp.Eshwapuri cotony} ROad .No.5, Near Majid, Jaipuri Coloiny Nagole, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad S0006g

¶15

......Respondents.

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.B. Ravi Kiran Singh Counsel for lst Respondent Bank : Mr. N.V. Subba Raju Respondents 2 to S : No representation

¶17

-:oRDER:-

¶18

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.77 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as^..SARFAESI Act 2OOZ,) to suspend the Section 14 proceedings dated 16.05.2023 in Crl.tvlp No.772/2023 initiated by the respondent bank on the file of learned principat Senior Civil Judge Court, Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in respect of SA schedule property.

¶19

The case of the applicant in brief, is that she is the absolute owner of the application schedule property having acquired the same from her husband Jallapalli Dasharatha. vide s?le deed hi .(r't

¶20

SANo.247 12023

¶21

Doc.No.716712015 dated 04.04.20L5. She^{has no other source} of income except rent on^{schedule property.She is not literate} and bank obtained signatures^{towards creation of security} interest without explaining the^{purpose hence same is voidin} law. Applicant came to know of fraud only^{when advocate} commissioner was appointed, If bank^{takes the physical} possession she would be put to starvation and vagrancy"^Hence this SA.

¶22

The respondent bank filed reply statement.^{Submissions,in} brief, are that the applicant^is one^of the^{guarantors to the loan} availed by the 2nd respondent. Due to failure^{in repayment,} account became NPA on 31.03.2021 followed^{by initiation of} SARFAESI measures. The demand^notice and^{possession notice} were issued as per Rules. After service of 30 days^{notice dated} 04.t0.2027, the 4th respondent^{who is} the^son of^{the applicant} sought time, The auction was unsuccessful for want of^bidders. The subsequent auction had to be cancelled at the^{request of} successful bidder due to^pendency of SA23l/2021. Said SA^was dismissed on merits on 24.04.2Q24. fhe vacate notice^was issued to the applicant as well as respondents 2 to 5.^The applicant was explained all the terms and^conditions of^{the loan} documents and upon acceptance only her signatures^were obtained. The borrowers have been^playing delay tactics^by creating multiple litigations. The monies due to bank^{is public} money and cannot be^permitted to be blocked by^frivolous litigation as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Authorized^officer, State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C, AIR^{2018SUPREME^COURT} 676. SAis liable to be dismissed with exemplary ,ort r/fuStb

¶23

SA No.247 / 2023

¶24

Representative of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent bank reported that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material brought on Tecord.

¶25

Now, the^points that arise for consideration are:-

¶26

(i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures taken by^the respondent bank under the Act, 2002 against the a ppl ication sched u le^property?

¶27

( ii) To what relief?

¶28

Point^(i):

¶29

The^grievance of the applicant^{in the applicationis that sheis} not educated and her signatures were obtained^without explaining the contents. This is considered^{as a vague contention} since she has not filed any^proof of raising any^{suchobjection at} the time of execution of documents or^{thereafter.The} respondent bank affirms that officials of bank^explainedthe applicant her terms and conditions of the^{loan. The alleged fraud} or coercion is not established and hence the^{contentionis not} accepta ble.

¶30

There are no contentions with regard to^complianceof provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder. However, the respondent bank has filed^postal receipts as^proof of^sending demand notice to the applicant and material^documents evidencing^personal service of^possession notice,^{its affixtureon} secured asset and^publication in English and^{Telugu newspapers.} /,* i>t' ' ''9^ '

¶31

sANo.247/2023

¶32

No infraction of^provisions of^{the Act, 2002 and Rules 8(1) and} B(2) of 2002 is found.^{The respondent bank being secured} creditor is entitled to take^{physicalpossessionunder Sec'14 of} the Act, 2002,

¶33

B. In view of the foregoing^{observations,I find that the applicant} has failed to make out any^{valid ground to set aside any of the} measures of the respondent bank^{against the application} schedule^property under^{the Act, 2002 and accordinglythe SA is} liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Point (ii):

¶35