Dismissed

M a Khaja Pasha v. Union Bank of India

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a guarantor, filed a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside a vacate notice and sale notice issued by the respondent bank. The court found the bank followed the required procedure regarding notices and possession under the Act and Rules, finding no infraction. Since the auction did not materialize as reported, the prayer regarding sale notice be

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; interim stay vacated; pending interlocutory applications closed.

M a Khaja Pasha versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT:^{SH. MMESHWARKOTHE,B'com' L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

Securitization^{Application No'281OF 2023}

¶5

Mr.M.A, Khaja^Pasha S/o Mohammad^{Abdul Latif} Age 49 Years,^{Occ:Business,Male} 8-3-230 I^{Al 61 26, Venkatagiri} Yousufguda,^{HYderabad-500004}

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank^{of India} Nagaram^Branch ReP bY its^{Chief Manager} Sy.No.257,^Nagaram Keesara Mandal Ranga ReddY^District -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸³ lnow^{Medchal-MalkagjgiriDist')}

¶9

Union Bank^{of India} Nagaram^Branch ReP bY its^{Authorized Officer} Sy.No.257,^Nagaram Keesara Mandal Ranga ReddY^District -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸³ lnow^{Medchal-MalkagjgiriDist')}

¶10

.. ',ResPondents'

¶11

Counsel for^{the Applicant : Mr' B' Ravi Kiran Singh}

¶12

Counsel for^{RespondentBank : Ms' K' Srilatha}

¶13

-:g-U-EB:-

¶14

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of q6 Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} rnfoJcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to set^{aside the vacate noticedated 20'06'2023 issued in} ffiv

¶15

Pate 2 of4

¶16

SA No.281/2023

¶17

pursuance of Warrant issued by learned XVII Addl. CMM, Hyderabad in Crl.Mp No.1350 of 2023 and sale notice dated 26.06.2023 issued by the respondent bank in respect of the application schedule property.

¶18

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he stood as guarantor for the credit facility availed by one M/s Recepta l4edicaa, rep by its Proprietor Ms.sheshadri prameela who defaulted in payment. Without issuing any prior notice, the respondent bank obtained warrant to take physicar possession of the property. The appricant has been deprived to issue objections to demand notice u/s 13(34). Sale notice was issued on 28.06.2023 informing the date of auction as 73.07.2023 whereas it is mandatory to keep 30 days and in case of subsequent sare, 15 days gap. The action of respondent bank is not accordtng to law hence this SA.

¶19

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that demand notice was issued on 03.I0.2022 and published in .Business Standard,and,l,lana Terangana' newspapers. The appricant was served with possession notice dated 19.01.2023 at his residence. possession notice was affixed on the secured asset and published in ,Financial Express, and 'Velugu', English and Telugu newspapers on 22.07.2023. Respondent bank issued sale notice dated 02.05.2023 and served personally on the applicant. As the sale did not take place as per previous sate notice, a fresh sale notice was issued on 26.06.2023 which was served on the applicant. The respondent bank has followed due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and hence SA is liable to be dismisse(.4r*,., q - - --'a_/-y)-vo\ A

¶20

Page 3 of4

¶21

5A No.28u2023

¶22

Representative of^{learned counsel for the applicant reported} that orders^{may be passed basedon records'Heard learnedcounsel} for the respondent^{bank.Perused the material brought on record'}

¶23

During the^{course of the arguments, learned counsel for the} respondent bank^{while reiterating the contents of the reply} statement, relied^{uPon the documents annexedthereto as proof of} compliance of^{due procedure and soughtfor dismissalof the SA'}

¶24

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

¶25

i) Whether the^{applicant made out any valid ground to set} aside the vaca;te^{notice dated 20'06'2023 as wellas sale} notice dated 26.06'2023^{againstthe SAschedule}

¶26

pro7ert, as PraYed for?

¶27

ii) To what relief?

¶28

Point No.(i):

¶29

Admittedly the applicant^{is the guarantorand the principal} borrower committed^{default inpayment Hence the action of} respondent in initiating^{Securitization proceedingsagainstthe} secured asset for^{recovery of dues cannot be faulted with The} respondent bank sent^{the demand noticedated 03'10'2022 to the} borrower as^{well as the applicant by registeredpost besides} publishing the same in English^{and Telugu newspapers'The} possession notice had been^{issued after 60 days from the demand} notice i.e., on 19.01.2023^{whichwas personallyreceived by the} applicant under^{his signature. The possessionnotice was also} published in English and Telugu^{newspapers and affixed on the} property belonging to the^{applicant,The said action is evidentfrom} pages 1 to 13 of material^{papers annexed to the reply statement' I} find no infraction of^{provisions under Secs'13(2),13(4) read with} Rules 8(1) and 8(2)^{of the Rules,} '^{20o2./br'.&*-} (-/ '\h'-

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

sA No.281/2023

¶32

Being secured creditor, the respondent bank is entiiled under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to approach the learned CMM/DM for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly respondent bank obtained warrant in crr.Mp No.1350/2023 on the fire of rearned XVII Addl. CMM and such action of the respondent cannot be termed as illegal.

¶33

It is not reported whether auction materialized pursuant said sale notice. Hence it is deemed that the auction did not take place and accordingly prayer with regard to sale notice becomes infructuous.

¶34

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be missed.

¶35

Point No.(ii):

¶36

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

L2. ConsequenUy, interim stay shall stand vacated and the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶38

(Typed to my dictotion by the p5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2d ddy of August, 2025).

¶39

Ow** (RAfiESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M a Khaja Pasha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M a Khaja Pasha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited