Partly allowed

Mr Gunjala Sayanna v. Canara Bank

DRT24 Oct 2025SA/250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the Security Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners challenged a possession notice issued by the bank for failing to comply with statutory procedural requirements. The tribunal held that the bank failed to justify its action by filing a reply or producing documents, and thus quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession notice dated 17.05.2025 is quashed. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh by following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

Mr Gunjala Sayanna versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL * 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER ,2c/25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.25O./2c.25

¶4

Mr.Gunjala Sayanna, S/o Gunjala Durganna Aged 56 years, Occ:business, H.No. I 1- 1-8/893, Chandra Sekhar Colony, Nizamabad District. Nizamabad-503OOl

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Canara Bank R9n. bV its Authorized oflicer, Nizamabad Main branch-----' NLamabad-5O3OO i. Counsel for the Applicant ; sn D. *"r;j',j'""0""' Respondent : Exparte Reserved on :LZ.tO.2O2S Pronounced on :24.tO.2025 Uploaded on :24.tO.2025

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The Applicant fired the present securitisation Application u/s. 17 of tie Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the Possession Notice dt. 17.05.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property and to set aside the same as legal and void.

¶10

in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant r/lfi of Rs.4 lakhs from the Respondent by creating 'l^{o,r1o.,gu!3 agair,"?} schedule property. But due to loss in the lg^{be",+,4q1fiffiepp} t could not pay some instalments and so, the

¶11

-Wb,

¶12

Respondent declared the loan account as NpA. Without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, straightway, the bank is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent failed to publish the impugned possession notice in newspapers and also not affixed the same on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶13

Notice served to the Respondent, no representation and set exparte.

¶14

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶15

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶16

i) Whetller the Applicant has established any uali.d grounds for challenging the^possession Notice dt.17.05.2025 issued bg the

¶17

Respondent?

¶18

ii) To uhat relieft

¶19

Point No.ll)

¶20

The Applicant filed the present SA chanenging the impugned possession Notice dt. 17.05.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by frling Reply and by producing necessary material documents to prove that the Respondent has strictly folowed the provisions of sARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder in issuing the sale notice against the secured ,t^{has not evincedany interest in contesting} the So, it can be inferred that the Respondent the vd of the Applicant. In the absence of any to show the Respondent has duly complied with glJ;ffi. AESI Act and Ru1es, 2OO2 in issuing that the Applicant has made a case for

¶21

quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶22

Point No.liilt

¶23

In the result, SA 2SO/25 is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Possession Notice dt' 17.05.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶24

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶26

(Dbtated. to the Priuate SecretarA, transcnbed. by her, corrected, '^*' signed. and pronounced. bg me in the open courT on this the 24ti d"a "I O;;;;;, 2;; i:'

¶27

sd/-

¶28

//6.
{/
TE
+
)

¶29

(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFF'ICER

Mr Gunjala Sayanna v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gunjala Sayanna v. Canara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India