The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the security interest application challenging an impugned pre-sale notice. The court quashed the notice due to the Respondent's failure to file a reply or prove statutory compliance under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
The impugned pre-sale notice dated 24.07.2025 issued by the Respondent is hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER. 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.356,/2C.25
... Applicants
Versus
Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, Parkala branch, Parkala, Hanamkonda Dist.
... Respondent
Counsel for tLe Applicants Si T.Sidhar Reddg Respondent Exparte Reserued on 29.10.2025 Pronounced on 30.10.202s Uploaded on :30.10.2025
ORDER
1' The Applicants frled the present securitisation Application u/s. 17 of the Securitization and ial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest 2002) chatlenging the Intended Sale Notice e Respondent u/r 8(6) of Security Interest against the schedule property and to set void.
a
Notice served to the Respondent, no representation and set exparte.
ii) To tthat relief?
Polnt No.lil
6' The Applicants liled the present sA challenging the impugned pre-sare Notice dt.24.07.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule. p{op_erty, failed to justify their action by frling Reply and tV nrOage$engcgqp$y material documents to prove that the e provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules all the statutory notices to the inced any interest in contesting it can be inferred that the
Respondent is not disputing the version of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 irt issuing pre-sale notice, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule propert5r under the provisions ofthe SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.
Polnt No.llil:-
(Dctated to tte Priuate Secretary, transcibed bg her, conected, signed and. pronounced. bg me on this the 3Ah dag of October, 202 5).
sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER Assl^egldtrcr . . DRl'-1,llYFEg.|rl' :',i' 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicants have established valid grounds for challenging the Intended Sale Notice issued by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Respondent complied with the mandated provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules while issuing the pre-sale notice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Martha Rajabhadraiah
Martha Jyothi
Union Bank of India
Gummadri Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
