Dismissed

Sai Ram First Aid Centre v. Unity Small Finance Bank

DRT13 Nov 2025SA/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by the borrowers to set aside the Respondent Bank's action to take physical possession of the mortgaged property. The court found adequate proof of strict procedural compliance, including service of notices and publication.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application is dismissed; Interlocutory Applications stand closed; No order as to costs.

Sai Ram First Aid Centre versus Unity Small… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF^{NOVEMBER,2025}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.36OF 2024}

¶5

Sai Ram First Aid Centre

¶6

Rep. by Mr.K. Venkateswar^Rao S/o Narayan Rao, Aged about⁵³ Years Occ:Business, R/o H.No.4-6^Part Prathap Singaram Village, Ghatkesar lYedchal- Malkajgiri District 500 088

¶7

Smt.K. Nagamani

¶8

W/o K. venkateswar Rao

¶9

Aged about 43^yearc, Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.4-6 Part

¶10

Prathap Singa ram Village, Ghatkesar Medchal-Malkajgiri District 500⁰⁸⁸

¶11

.......APPlicant.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Unity Small Finance^Bank Rep. by its authorized officer Situated at Centrum House CST Road, Vidyanagari^{Marg, Kalina} Santacruz^(E), Mumbai^{400 098}

¶14

....ResPondent'

¶15

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. D, Raghavulu

¶16

Counsel for Respondent : Mr.Lanka lagannadham

¶17

-r 98-qE3:-

¶18

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") to set aside the action^{of respondent to takephysical} possession of the application schedule^{property pursuant to Warrant} in Crl.MP No.557 of 2023 on^{the file of learqred Chief Metropolitan} ./,/ fi\n,/ ^<^ (._// / ./t ',t \L^'

¶19

Page 2 of4

¶20

SA No.36/2024

¶21

lv'lagistrate at Medchal-Malkajgirl and in^pursuance of^possession notice dated 05.10.2023 issued under^{sec.13(4) of the Act,2002.}

¶22

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they^{availed term} loan of Rs.30 lakhs against mortgage of SA schedule^{property.Dueto} lack of business assoclated with other^{problems, applicants couldnot} pay some instalments. Without considering the difficulties and request to regularize the account, respondent bank^{classified the} account as NPA against law. Respondent^{withoutservingthe demand} notice,^possession notice and without affixing and^{publishingthe} possession notice initiated action to take^{physicalpossession} of the property. Hence the sA.

¶23

The respondent bank adopted the counter in IA No.210/2024 as reply statement in the SA. The submissions, briefly, are^that applicants also availed loan facility of Rs.10,48,343/- in addltion^to Rs.30,00,000/- . Due to default in repayment, account became^NP on 03.07.2023 followed by initiation of Securitization^{proceedingsby} issuing demand notice dated 14.07.2023 for Rs.30,13,341.23^{ps plus} interest. Another loan also became NPA on 02.10.2023 and demand notice dated tL.t2.2023 was issues in respect of the said loan account. In spite of receiving the demand notices, applicants neither paid any payment nor raised any objections. Hence possession notlce dated 05.10.2023 was issued, sent to the applicants by reglstered post, affixed on secured asset and published in'lvlana Telangana'and 'Business Standard' Telugu and English newspapers. Thereafter, respondent filed Crl MP No.557 /2023 u/s 14 of the Act and the advocate commissioner appointed therein issued 15 days vacate notice. A total of Rs.44,79,385.73^ps is due as on 25.01.2024 from the applicants. SA is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶24

\nti1.r'^^(? (ir..<sup>-

¶25

Page 3 of4

¶26

SA N0.35/2024

¶27

The right of arguments of applicants was^forfeitedon 29.07.20225 for not advancing the same in spite of^sufficient opportunity. Heard learned counsel for the^respondent and^perused the material documents^placed on record.

¶28

During the course of arguments, learned counsel^{for the} respondent reiterated the version as in the reply statement.^While referring to the documents^placed on record along with^{counter in IA} N}.ZL0/2024, as proof of strict compliance of the^{procedure as} prescribed in the Act and the Rules of 2002, learned counsel sought for dismlssal of the SA.

¶29

The points for consideration are as follows^: -

¶30

i) whether the applicant made out any^{valid ground to} quash any of the measures of the respondent against the sA schedule^property, as PraYed^for?

¶31

ii) To what relieP

¶32

Point No.^(i):

¶33

Admittedly the applicants availed^{credit facility from the} respondent against mortgage of the^{application scheduleproperty} and committed default in repayment.^{Hence classifyingthe accounts} as NPA and initiating Securitization^{measurescannotbe treatedas} illegal.

¶34

The respondent^placed on record^{sufficient proof as to service} of demand notice,^{possessionnotice and affixture and publicationof} possession notlce. As per Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 the^respondent being secured creditor is entitled^{to take action for takingphysical} possession of the secured asset. I find no rltiviation^{in the procedure} fotlowed by the respondent. //ng.',,.fi /)/

¶35

Page 4 of 4

¶36

SA No.36/2024

¶37

It is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent including the action to take^{physicalpossession} of the SA schedule^property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

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

¶40

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

L2. No order as to costs,

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶43

(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13'h doy of November,2025).

¶44

MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sai Ram First Aid Centre v. Unity Small Finance Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Ram First Aid Centre v. Unity Small Finance 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Edwin Francis Lawrence

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs.N Lohitha

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Naga Lakshmi Chilupuri

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mrs. Mallepogu Shirisha

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Ayyappa Logistics

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets