Dismissed

A Kishore Chowdary v. Union Bank of India

DRT16 Sept 2025SA/288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed this securitization application, holding that the applicants failed to establish valid grounds to set aside the respondent bank's statutory action in taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act after strict procedural compliance and despite service of required notices.

What did the court decide?

The securitization application was dismissed; immediately pending interlocutory applications were directed to be closed; no order as to costs.

A Kishore Chowdary versus Union Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^. II^{AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.288^OF 2024

¶5

Mr. A. Kishore Chowdary S/o Late A. Rajagopala Krishna Male, 45^years, unemPloyed Kumbalanuru CamP I, Nadlchagi^Post Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District,^A.P.

¶6

Mrs. Naga Jyothi w/o A. Kishore Chowdary Female, 44^years, Housewife Kumbalanuru CamP I, Nadichagi^Post Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District,^A.P.

¶7

Mrs.A. Lakshmi Wo^{late A. RajagopalaKrishna} Female, 65^years. Housewife Kumbalanuru CamP I, Nadichagi^Post Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District,^A.P.

¶8

.......APPllcants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Union Bank of India Rep. by its Chairman & Managing^Director A body constituted under the Banking^Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 Central Office at 239,^{Vidhya BhavanMarg} Backside of Nariman Point, Mumbai

¶11

The Union Bank of^India Rep, by its Chief Manager Adoni Branch, Kurnool District

¶12

The Union Bank^{of India} Rep. by its Manager Main Branch, Adoni, Kurnool^Distrlct

¶13

The Authorized Officer Union Bank of India Adoni, 19/1, OPP.Municipal^Office Kurnool, Kurnool District,^A.P.

...,Respondents.

ffio**

Page 2 of5

sA No.288/2024

Counsel for the Applicants^{: Mr' KuritiV' Prem SwamiNaidu} Counsel for ResPondent^{: Mr. V. Raghu}

¶19

.:g-B-D-EB:.

¶20

The Applicants filed^{the present SecuritisatlonApplicationu/s} 17 of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of^{SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as} "the Act") to^{declareaction of the respondentbank in trying to take} physical possession of the application^{scheduleproperty through} advocate commissioner^{appointed in Crl MP No.194 of 2024on the} file of learned Chief^{Judicial MagistrateCum Prl. Assistant Sessions} Judge, Kurnool,^{as void and set aside measures under 13(4) of the} Act,2002.

¶21

The case of the applicants,^{in brief, is that fatherof the 1't} applicant during his^{life time availed housingloan, respondentbank} sanctioned Rs.20^{lakhs but disbursed Rs.18lakhs. The applicants} have been^{payingmonthly instalments frcm2074 onwardstill Covid} pandemic which shows the^{bonafidesin dischargingthe liability'} Though a substantial^{paymentof Rs.17.66 lakhs was made, the bank} classified the account^{as NPA by issuingnotice dated 05 04 2021} during Covid^{period against the Central Government/RBIdirectives,} and invoked Securitization^{proceedingsby issuing and demand notice} dated 06.05.2021 for^{Rs.12,16,745.45ps followedby possession} notice dated 23.07.2027.^{Bankattempted to put the property to} auction on 04.02.2022,^{28.07.2022, 21.72.2022, 09 02 2024 besides} filing OS No.179 of^{2023. Thereafter obtained Warrantin Crl'14P} No.1g4lZO24 to take^{physical possessionof the schedule property'} Hence this SA.

ftrc''"

Pate 3 of6

SA No.288/2024

The respondents 1 to 4 bank ("respondent' hereinafter) filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly. are that the interest has been charged only on the disbursed amount of Rs.18 lakhs. The fixed EMI of Rs.3,42,067/- was never paid in time. Hence Securitization measures have been taken up after classiflcation of account as NPA on 05.04.202t. Demand notice was issued on 06.O5.202L, as debt was not cleared within 60 days, possession notice was issued on 23.07.2021 and thereafter taken action to take physical possession of the secured asset. In spite of several attempts, the auction could not be conducted successfully. The respondent bank has followed due procedure prescribed in the Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder. SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent bank. perused the written arguments filed for both the parties along with material documents placed on record.

¶27

During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants reiterated the version as in the application. He further contended that though the applicants continuously paid the monthly instalments the respondent bank classified the account as NpA disregarding the Covid-19 situation, issued notices with high outstanding amount than the amount actually due and put the property to auction number of times. Now, it has taken action for physical possession of the schedule property. Respondent bank also tiled OS 779/2023. The applicant received a notice on 23.03.2024 to appear before Mandal Legal Services Authority for settlement, wherein demand amount of Rs.5,41,350/- including interest was shown. If the physical possession is taken, the petitioners would

,ffw1u"nt% r/'rb'"

Page 4 of 6

sA No.288/2024

suffer mental^{agonyand irreparableloss' Wlth thesecontentions'} learned counsel^{prayedto allow the SA'}

¶32

The learned^{counselfor the respondent bank also in reiteration} of the^{contentsof the reply statement,further submitted that the} default^{is seen from the table of payments shownin the application} and the statement^{of account annexedto the application,the account} became NPA^{much prior to Covid-19 pandemic, howeverRBI} guidelines have been^{followed by the bank, measures under} SARFAESI^{Act are not barred on account of either filing the Civil suit} or approaching^{the Legal Services Authority'The applicantsare not} disputing^{serviceof demand notice or possessionnotice butseeking} to set aside^{legitimate action taken under Sec' 14 of the Act' 2002'He} further submitted^{that the respondentbank has followedthe due} procedure of law and^{hence SA is liable to be dismlssed'}

¶33

The.polnts for consideration^{are as follows : -}

¶34

i) whether the^{applicant madeout any ualid ground.toset} aside the action of^{the respondentbank in takingphysical} possession of the sA schedule^{propertY,as prayed for?}

¶35

ii) To what relief?

¶36

Point No.(i):

¶37

The applicants' contention^{is that the amount disbursed was} only Rs.18^Iakhs though^{sanctionedamountwas Rs.20lakhsBank} affirms that the amount^{disbursedand interestchargedon Rs 18} lakhs only. Admittedly, the^{monthlyinstalmentamountis} Rs.3,37,42A/- whereas a^perusal of^{the table of paymentsprojected} in the application and^{the statement of accountfiled by the applicants} themselves demonstrates that^{except on a very few} sions, the Pf,.,16

¶38

Page 5 of6

¶39

5A N0.288/2024

¶40

fixed monthly instalment was not paid as per agreed terms. Hence the applicants cannot be permitted to claim that they regularly paid amounts and account was classified as NPA illegally. Though the applicants contend that the amount as per Legal Services Authority is only Rs.5.41.350/-, a perusal of the notices shows that the said amount was due as on 01.03.2020. As righfly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, it is a well settled law that there is no bar on Secured Creditor to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act against the secured asset simultaneously along with other legal measures.

¶41

There is no dispute over service of the notices. However, the respondent bank filed sufficient proof as to compliance of Sec.13(4) read with Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. The respondent bank being secured creditor, is entitled under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to approach the learned CMM/DM for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset and such valid action cannot be interfered with.

¶42

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant has utterly failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the action of the respondent bank under Sec.13(4) or Sec.14 of the Act, 2002. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Point No,(ii);

¶44

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

¶45

12- Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. tNxq*9

¶46

Page 6 of 6

¶47

SA N0'288/2024

¶48

No order^{as to costs.}

¶49

^{partiesconcernedand}

¶50

Communicate^{a copy of this order}

¶51

upload^{in the official website.}

¶52

(typed to ny dictotion^{bythePS,coffected'signedond pronouncedby mein theopen'outtohthis} the 1d^{day of se?tenbet,2025).}

¶53

PRESIDING^OFFICER

A Kishore Chowdary v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Kishore Chowdary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nivansh Modulars

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ramesh Paper Plate Supply

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Fareeduddin

Yes Bank versus Nellikanti Lingaiah

Manadala Sriramulu versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Tokala Nageswara Rao