Dismissed

B.Venkat Ramulu v. Canara Bank

DRT15 Sept 2025SA/355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was filed to challenge the bank's attempt to take physical possession and the validity of a sale certificate. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the applicant failed to challenge the necessary notices within the stipulated time and previously raised the issue in a writ petition which was dismissed. Consequently, the application was dismissed

What did the court decide?

SA 355/23 is dismissed as there are no merits; interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

B.Venkat Ramulu versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^'I 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C.25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.355,/2c23

¶5

B.Venkata Ramulu, S/o B.Shantaiha, Aged 53 years, Occ:barber R/o H.No.8/45, Marlu, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And.

¶8

1 . Canara Bank H.No. 1-5-71A, New Town, Mahabubnagar-50900 1.. Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶9

D. Chandra Sekhar, S/o D.Narsaiah, Aged 5O years, Occ:agriculture, R/o H.No.4-91l 1, Kothlabad, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar Town .... Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : SiY.Srikanth Reddg Counsel for the l"t Respondent ; Sri B. iV. Swami Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Si M.Narender Reddg

¶10

-:ORDER:.

¶11

This.application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the sARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the 1st Respondent for taking physical possession of thE..,, sche-dule propert5r through Advocate commissioner prr."r.nc.it6:;ft[iloa., .i r,a.c..rrra, Mahabubnagar in Crl. M. P. No.34 I 2o2o ly'p$?aLso ioq settiirifi\side the Sale Certifi cate No.4547 /2o at. t t .Od4o-zo is:rediy ur. r "Fn\no"dent bank in favour of 2'd Responae.,t drdto dJ"flr56ffd&6"" #fl"", and void.

¶12

tQ,g-*"p;'

¶13

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶14

The Applicant availed loan from the lst Respondent bank. Even though the applicant did not commit any default, the lst Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA and issued demand notice dt. dt.25.09.2010. The lst Respondent without issuing any possession notice, is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner in pursuance of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.34 /23 on the lile of Ld.CJM, Mahabubnagar. The Applicant came to know that the lst Respondent Bank executed Regd. Sale certificate bearing Doc.No.4S4Z l20 dt. 1 I .03.2020 in favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

The 1st Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the SA is barred by limitation. The 1"t Respondent bank issued fresh demand notice dt.30.05.20l9 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, earlier demand notice dt.25.09.2010 does not survive. When the 1"t Respondent issued sale notice for conducting auction in respect of the schedule property , challenging the same, the Applicant approached Hon,ble High Court of Telangana by filing W.P.No.ll167 l2O2O and the said writ petition was dismissed. The 1st Respondent bank followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2^.and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice dt.30.0S.2Olg, possession notice d,t.24.1O.2O19 and sale notice dt. 18.12.2019 to the Applicant and the said possession notice and sale notice are published in daily newspapers and affixed on the schedule property. When the lst Respondent initiated proceedings before Ld.CJM, Mahabubnagar by filing application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession through advocate commissioner, the petition before the Hon'b1e High Court of was dismissed on 10.08.2022. So and ,^{1st Respondent prayed} SfPh?;ff .-.i

¶16

Respondent No.2 Iiled his Reply contending that Respondent No.2 participated in the auction held on 22.1.2o2o and became successful bidder for a sale consideration ofRs. 12,60,000/- and he paid the entire bid amount and sale certificate dt.l3.o2.2o2o was issued in his favour and the same was registered vide document bearing No.4547/20. So, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

ruhether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for

¶20

challenging tlte steps initiated bg the 1.t Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schpdule propertg tlvough aduocate commissioner?

¶21

whetter the Applicant is entitled to challenge the sale ertificate dt.13.02.202o issued bg tfe Ft Respondent bank infauour of 2d Respondent in respect of the schedule property?

¶22

To uthat relief?

¶23

Polnts lvo.(tf & liif:-

¶24

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶25

'2' '' -''-'-'

¶26

/.'-:'i -'.ⁱ ,,^..ji).

¶27

1. There is 5p\iier-saidfr$ fact that Applicant availed loan from the 1"t lbnt and,:bleated rl in respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in

¶28

$:""'pu'srfll {he loan dues. ,^{the 1st} Respondent issued demand

¶29

notice dt.25.09.2oto u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 in respect of the schedule property and subsequently issued fresh demand notice dt.30.05.2019. Auction in respect of the schedule property was already conducted by the l"r Respondent bank and Respondent No.2 became successful bidder and registered sale certificate was arso issued in favour of the Respondent No.2.

¶30

8' The specihc contention of the Applicant is that without serving possession notice and sare notice to the Applicant, the rst Respondent conducted auction in respect of the schedule propert5r and the Bank is also trying to take physical possession of the schedule propert5r and so, the said proceedings are illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶31

Per contra, lst Respondent contended that the bank has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 a.'d Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice, possession notice and sale notice to the Appricant and also in taking steps u/s 14 0f the SARFAEST Act, 2oo2 for taking physicar possession of the schedule property. Auction in respect of the schedule propert,r was conducted rong back and so, the present SA is barred by limitation. It is further contended by the 1st Respondent Bank that on earlier occasion, the Appricant filed w.P.No. 1 116z /2020 challenging the auction conducted on 22.or.2o2o in respect of the schedule propert5r and the same was dismissed and so, now the Applicant cannot re-agitate about the validity of the sale conducted by the 1"t Respondent bank in respect of the schedule property.

¶32

by the Applicant himself, it is clear that the n notice dt.24.lO.2Ol9 u/s 13(4) of the SARF. ;rP i;i:i issuing the said possession notice, the lst Respondent issiit"a aerr notice d1.30.05.2019 and the same was receiyed tf t6eggppp3n t denced by his signature on the office copy t having received the impugned possession 4

¶33

notice dt.24.f0.2019, is expected to challenge the said notice within forty five days from the date of receipt of the said notice. But the Applicant has not challenged the said possession notice within the stipulated time. So, now at this belated stage, he cannot challenge the validity or otherwise of the said possession notice.

¶34

As per the provisions of section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physicar possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the lst Respondent, being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Mahabubnagar u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Mahabubnagar after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued Notice d,t.t5.O9.2}23 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property. So, the said proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent for taking physical possession ofthe schedule propertlr are perfectly legal and valid.

¶35

So far as the impugned Sale Certificate dt. 1 1.03.2020 bearing No.4547 l2O issued by the lst Respondent Bank in favour of 2,rl Respondent in respect of the schedule propert5r is concerned, the Applicant is expected to charlenge the sale notice within forty five days from the date of issuance of the said notice. In fact, the Applicant challenged even the auction conducted by the lst Respondent in respect of the schedule property by filing writ petition No.rrr6z/20 before the Hon'ble High Telangana And the same was dismissed. Now at this staql,tb.e Apptlb?tt"..h.nnot re-agitate about the validiry or otherwise or tr,,e,glii certillii;dte iJffiv the rst Respondent bank in respect of rhe scrf {ple proper$i in favorj? oh2 nd Respondent. Ii\a 1 s siP ?fi2s Ij] 'ilet s ".s-F,f 'i.iac*-, o.roa;l;.l.'1'- l'

¶36

13_ So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to claim any relief in the SA and there are no merits in the SA. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.

¶37

Polnt ltlo.(tl)r

¶38

In the result, SA 355/23 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶39

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

bY her, @fteded, sisned and ponounced bs me in the opeft c'ruft on this ttc t sh aaa Lfffr:#Yrf;;:nsdibed

¶42

sdl(c.^(xlPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

TRUE
,inxw

¶44

B.Venkat Ramulu v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkat Ramulu v. Canara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Vamsi Filling Station versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Alankrutha Fashions

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hari Hara Putra Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Nindujarla Ashok Kumar