A Debts Recovery Tribunal application under the SARFAESI Act challenging a bank's possession and sale notices. The court held that despite procedural complaints by the applicants, the bank followed the required statutory procedure, dismissing the application.
The securitization application is dismissed, and the interim stay order is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No.254 OF 2024
Versus
.......Applicant.
Union Bank of India D.No.10-8-263, AKN ComDtex Prakasam Road, Naoari Chittooor eranch, Aidhra pradeshR rep by its Authorized Officer
....Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent
: Mr. Kranthi Kumar. K : Mr. V. Raghu
-:ORDER:-
Page 2 ol 4
sA N0'254/2024
security. Theyhad been paying instalments regularlybut due to pandemic sltuatlon andbusiness loss, there was defaultWithout considering therequest,respondentbank classifiedthe accountas NPA and issuednoticedated 15.07.2021 demanding Rs'7,38,656/-' Aggrieved by theactionof respondentbank in issuing Rule 8(5) notice dated 77.0I.2022,the applicantsfiled wP No 9323of 2022 before Hon'bleHigh Court for the State of Telanganawherein interim stay wasgranted. It was observedthat action in any event wouldbe subject to outcomeot SA 34/2022'The applicants compliedthe order. However,the respondent bank atfixed notice u/s Sec'13(4) daled27.05.2024on property Respondentbank failed to follow Rules 8(1)and 8(2) in servingand publishing the possession notice HencethisSA.
Page3 o{ 4 SANo'25a/2024
ii) To what relief?
Point No.(i):
page 4 of 4
i','ffi ffi:[r:,.:il:i:: ii::l,.", :,,ffi :;:; tppricant ,,0" ,"#'ll,-_0"'uo ,r.ot.,riio"'li,l1 'uo', to the same. '."tl"wledsement .r.1]]^ticeived by the .docurnents "rr"-"0 was pub,isheo , ^],_fne replv rtutur".,r- j:aced at page-r2 of ti :i,ITr'; ::i:ji;:: ;il:;.# lirrotographsp#:T --'r-tt,tsl'lr. I find an^^, _>ecs.13(2)and 131,. ,o* u,, u;;:::J":,,lli i:"::,;'ff;::"J,;""::,:?:; Rure 8(6) ;l by the appricanrs on ;r-;:"::jn" a n n exed,.,n. ,."# .ll;ll'j"'j.,,0" r*,"1 : :ff :J:;rfi ;:L": B. In view o, ,n"-'"""'"n' above observations, I utterly rairuo to m}.=u rJ : #::1il t sA schedule property. Accordingly m ea s u res or sA ti,. is liable rurpo,.loltn to be : :ru;[: dismissed. T ".j.i"^,.
Point No.(ai)i
9' In the resurt, the securitization Apprication fairs and is hereby dismissed.
(Typed .to my dictation by the ps, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of July, 2O2S).
,fu5't>u (RAIqESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the schedule property under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
To what relief should the Debts Recovery Tribunal grant given the non-following of due procedure in serving and publishing the possession notice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Padmavathi and K P Murugesan
Union Bank of India
Rameshwar Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
