Dismissed

Moru Pushpa v. Union Bank of India

DRT25 Jul 2025SA/314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application to set aside bank measures under the SARFAESI Act. Finding service of statutory notices valid and no violation of procedural rules, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

,ORIGINAL'

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

SECURITISATiON APPLICATION NO.3I4 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Moru^pushpa W/o Late M. Eshwar Aged about Sl years, Occ:Business R/o H.No.3-59, plot No.32 Block No.4, Kothapet (V) Uppal Mandat, LB Nagai, Hyderabad_5000365

¶8

And

¶9

Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch #249/3RT,1st Floor, SR Nagar Main Road Hyderabad, Tela n9a na -500038 Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.Kranthi Kumar K

¶12

Counsel for Respondent bank : Mrs. Tarangini^pisipati

¶13

-:ORDERi_

¶14

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction'of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act 2002") to set aside all the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Mp*

¶15

SA^No.314l2024

¶16

SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 includlng possessionnotice'dispossession} of applicant^{from the property and Rule 8(6) notice dated} 79.06.2024^{fixing auction on 26'07 '2024 in respectof SA} schedule Property'

¶17

The^{case of the appllcantin brief is that M/s sP Minesand} MineralsavailedloanfacilityofRs.T8lakhsfromerstwhile Andhra^{Bank now Union Bank of India in the year 2018' Thouqh} borrower^{paid instalments regularlytherewas default.dueto} business^{loss and financialcrunchWithoutconsideringthe} request^{to grant time to clear the overdues' respondent bank} fixed^{auction on 26'07 '2024 ' The respondent bank failed to issue} demand^{notice u/s 13(2) and possessionnotice u/s 13(4) prior} to sale^{notice on borrowers as well as guarantors' Rules 8 and 9} have^{not been followedHence this SA'}

¶18

The^{respondentbank filed replystatement denyingthe} adverse^{averments' Dueto default the loan account becameNPA} on 31.03.2021^{as per RBI guidelines A demand noticewas} issued on^{19.08'2021 u/s13(2) and was sent to} borrowers/guarantors^{Withno compliance'the respondent bank} issued^{possessionnotlce dated zz'o2'ZOZ2 u/s 13(4)whichwas} acknowledged^{by her son Moru Satish ln fact' the address} provided with bank is^{f-4-272,Road No'7' New Maruthinagar} East as is^{evidentfrom OA record in OA 20512022' The applicant} changed the^{addressonly for the purposeof SA' Thepossession} notice was affixed^{on securedasset and publishedin 'Mana} Telangana' and^{'Financial Express;TeluguandEnglish} newspapers^{respectivelyon 26,02.2022.Notice} X&fore,sal?^was //xY,.\1'' I'y '"

¶19

SA No.314l2024

¶20

issued on 03.05.2024 however sale did not take place due to stay orders of the Tribunal. Bank has followed all steps as per provisions of the Act, 2002. Hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant reported orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent bank in reiteration of the contents of the reply statement further submitted that the account was classified as NPA as per RBI guidelines, action against secured asset as per Rules. The demand notice and possession notice were received by the son of the applicant, the possession notice was affixed on secured asset and published in two newspapers as per Rules. She further submitted that the scheduled auction did not take place due to interim order^passed by the Tribunal. With these submissions, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA with exemplary costs.

¶23

Now, the^points that arise for consideration are:-

¶24

(i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act, 2002 against the a ppl ication sched u le^property ?

¶25

(ii) To what relieP

¶26

Point^(i):

¶27

The auction impugned herein did not take^place and therefore there is no necessity to deal with the averments^pertainingto the same. Mn..6

¶28

SA No.314/2024

¶29

8, The respondent bank^{placed on record materialevidencing} service of demand^{notice and possessionnotice.It is not denied} that the notices^{werereceivedby Moru Satishwho is none other} than the son of the^{applicantand also pafty to the notice'It is} also not denied that the^{addressof the applicantis'l-4-272,} Road No.7, New^{Maruthinagar' as available with the bank and} also as^per record in OA^{205/2022'Hence it is held that the} service of demand notice and^{possessionnotice on applicant is} valid. Bank also^{placed proof} of^{affixture and publication of} possession notice vide pages 15-18 of material^{papers annexed} to the reply statement. In view of sufficient^{proof availableon} record, I find no violation of Sec.13(2), 13(4) of^{the Act, 2002 or} Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of 2002.

¶30

In view of the foregoing observations, I find that^the applicant has failed to make out any valid^ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent bank against the application schedule^property under the Act, 2002 and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Point (ii):

¶32