Dismissed

K Vasantha Kumari and Another v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought to quash the respondent bank's measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SAREIA despite default. The tribunal held that demand and possession notices were validly served and published, the account was lawfully classified as NPA, and the auction failed to materialize. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; measure stands; ancillary suit closed.

K Vasantha Kumari and Another versus Indian Overseas Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICFR

¶3

Securitization Application No.310 OF 2023

¶4

Mrs.Vasantha Kumari

¶5

Wo^{K. Vuaya} Bhaska r Aged about 41 years Occ:Business, Rlo t2-3-534

¶6

12th Ward, Jesus Nagar, Ananthapur-51 SOO l

¶7

Mt. K. Vijaya Bhaskar

¶8

S/oKCNarayanaSwamy Aged about 51 years

¶9

Occ: Business, R/o 12-3-534

¶10

12th Ward, lesus Nagar, Ananthapur-515001

¶11

... ....Applica nts.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Indian Overseas Bank Ananthapu r Bra nch #Plot No.36, Vidyuth Nagar Main Road Ana nthpur, And hra Pradesh-515001 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶14

....Respondent.

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. K.^{Kranthi Kumar} Counsel for Respondent : Mr.Gampa Rangaiah

¶16

-: o-B-q.EB:-

¶17

The Applicants filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s} 17 of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") assailing the^measures of^{the respondent bank under} Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of^{the Act, 2OO2 and sale noticedated} 72.07.2023 fixing auction of^{application t.n!X*".propertvon}

¶18

Page 2 of4

¶19

SA N0'310/2023

¶20

The case of^{the applicants, ln brief, is that they availed housing} loan of^{Rs.3Olakhs in 2012 from the respondent bankagainst} mortgage of^{application scheduleproperty as security' Though} regular in^{payment, they committed default in payment for short} period due to financial^{crunch' Without consideringsubstantial} repayment of^{Rs.13 lakhs in 2023, respondent bank classified the} account as^{NPA against law. The respondent bank failed to serve the} demand notice,^{possession notice and 30 days notice The notices} were neither affixed^{nor published.Respondentbankfailed to follow} Secs.13(2), 13(4) and^{13(8) of the Act and the Rules 8(1), 8(2),} 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 9(1)^{of the Security Interest (Enforcement)} Rutes, 2OO2^{(hereinafter"Rules").Hence this SA to quash the} measures of the respondent bank.

¶21

The respondent bank filed reply statement^{along with} documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the^{applicantsare} borrower and co-borrower respectively. In view of continuous^default the loan account of applicants became NPA on 23.06.2017ⁱⁿ accordance with RBI directives. The demand notice dated 23.12.2027. Though acknowledged receipt of notice, applicants failed to clear the outstanding amount and hence^possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 20.04.2022, served the same on applicants/ published in 'Sakshi' and 'Hans India'Telugu and English newspapers on 26,04.2022 and passed on the secured asset. Redemption notice u/r 8(6) was issued on 12.07.2023. The respondent bank followed due procedure of law and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

The right of applicants advancing oral arguments was forfeited since reported not ready despite number of-adjournments. Written arguments not filed though tiberty granted. 7T "t"

¶23

page 3 of4

¶24

5 Heard the iearned cour sA wo.31ol2023 the respondent bank. pc same and ro" ,* ,r,"#?lilj:: - -""^' Ferused the rought on record.

¶25

: Learned counsel for the documenh unnuu, i;";":,:,y"t bank white referrine ro the deraurt the ...",,; ;,;';';:r":.,:::r*, wourd conrend that due to RBI guiderines. ,t" ;;; n""'.,:'utt'ouo as NPA in accordance with possession notice were served on app,icants, ,nu oor."..,or"lt^"..and rerusu newspape" ; .;;"; T':ilffij1'lT },.#:.ffj asset in due compliance of Sec: or the Rures of 2002. Herrnn"^{'"t"'73(4)r/w Rules8(1) and 8(2)} t'o''nuo that the impugned auction on 77.0g.2023 was not .r.,t :essful' Learned counser sought for dismissar of the sA.

¶26

Now, the points for consideration are as follows :

¶27

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property?

¶28

ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No.(i):

¶30

The impugned auction on did not take place and hence the averments pertaining to sale notice need not be considered.

¶31

The applicants admittedly availed housing loan of Rs.30 lakhs from respondent bank and defaulted in payment due to liquidity crunch. The statement of account also reflects the irregularity in payment. Hence no blame can be thrown on the respondent for categorizing the account as NPA. The application schedule property is the secured asset and there is no dispute on it. The 1't applicant received the demand notice dated 23.12.2021 on behalf of herself Nt'''v

¶32

page 4 of 4

¶33

SA No.310/2023

¶34

and 2nd appricant vide postar acknowredgement card copies praced at pages 14-17 of documents annexed to the reply statement. The possession notice was personally received by the applicants and also served by post as per documents at pages 2l_2g annexed to reply statement' Page 30 is'the proof of affixture of possession notice on the secured asset whe reas pages 31-32 are proof of publication of the possession notice in I;*; ;#;;,,^{i:i;,'"fl: #::lJ:l:?ffi:} J,,;:1 ;:

¶35

In view of the a oo]u observations, I fi faired to make out un, that the applicants ground t ,", ,ono of the respono"n, unuirLulid rrst th€ to r"0*"*;il;:::j[;il:ffi riabre to o" o,rro#

¶36

1,^{In the result,} trhe Securitization disrnissed. - -" nA pp lic,lrcition fails and is hereby 12. conseguenry, Inrp"r^^..stand c,osed. ;; ;;":'j:locutorv Appricationr to costs.^{''-rrvllS pending'} if any, shalr 13. communicate a .as uptoad,, ,n" ,o,.n, ;"T:,',":t this order to the parries concerned and !l!:;W:;';i;, ,r:!,::e ps, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on this )lin*, a.,,-.rr) (Rar^{'fq's ''-} ,^lsi#,ttiI3#H

K Vasantha Kumari and Another v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Vasantha Kumari and Another v. Indian Overseas 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

Similar cases

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited