Dismissed

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT23 Sept 2025SA/367/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside a possession notice. The Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove non-compliance with enabling provisions or document the default or impugned classification.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, are closed.

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEN4BER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.Com,L.LB.(Hons.), r'1.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.367^{OF 2023}

¶5

Chennareddygari Sanjeeva^{Kumar Reddy} S/o Ch. Padmanabha Reddy,^{Aged 47 years} Occ:Agriculture, R/o 28-852-A8,^{Housing Board Area} NGO'S Colony, Nandyal^(V), Nandyal Dist. 518501,^AP

¶6

.....APPlica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India Rep by its Authorlzed Officer 803791, Nandyal, 3-282,^{Byrmal Street} Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy} Counsel for Respondent Bank :^{Mr. V. SethuMadhavaRao}

¶10

-: O-B-D-EB:-

¶11

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to set aside the^{possession notice dated 19.08.2023issued} under Sec.13(4) of the^{Act, 2OO2by the respondent bank against the} application schedule^proPerty.

¶12

The averments of the applicatlon,^{briefly, are that the demand} notice was not issued in^{compliance of Sec.13(2), the possession} notice was not served, affixed^{and publishedas per Rules.Hencethis} SA.

¶13

The respondent bank filed^{replystatement along with} documents. The contents briefly, are^{that applicant availedcredit} facilities from erstwhile^{Andhra Bank, now Union} 9ank^of -India^and ,Ar>z,,nf I^t'/ "'>' '

¶14

PaBe 2 of3

¶15

SA N0.36712023

¶16

defaulted in repayment. The bank also filed OA No.04/2024^for recovery of Rs.99,99,719.62 Ps as on 27.72.2023.^{The demand} notice dated 12.06.2023 and^possession notice dated^19.08.2023 were served on applicant,^published in 'Sakshi' and 'The^Hindu' newspapers on 24.08,2023 and also affixed on the secured asset.^The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent bank. Perused the material documents brought on record.

¶18

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as respondent bank reiterated their respective version as in the application and reply statement.

¶19

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶20

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the possession notice dated 19.08.2023 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property as prayed for?

¶21

ii) To what relief?

¶22

Point No.(i):

¶23

The contention of the applicant that the account needs to be treated as standard asset and classification of account as NPA is against the RBI Circular, has been refuted by the respondent bank stating that the crop loan/KCC limit of Rs.45 lakhs has overdrawn since 30.09.2022 and interest on OD account has not been served and as per guidelines of RBI if one account of borrower is classified as NPA the respondent bank is bound to classify the other accounts also as NPA and that there is no stock to cover the drawing power of crop loan. The burden of proof lies with the applicant but he neither disputed default nor the reasor' "'o'"H*gLJ.lg bank in classiryins

| -u*:9;'-'

Page 3 of 3

SA No.36712023

the account as NPA, by^placing documentary^proof such as statement of account, relevant RBI Circular which has been flouted by the respondent bank, communication as proof of pursuing the matter with the respondent bank or the RBI etc. The applicant cannot expect the Tribunal to audit his account that too, without^placing any material proof on record. A perusal of demand notice dated L2.06.2023 displays the date of NPA as 05.06.2023, outstanding amount, description of^property etc, It has been sent to the applicant by registered post. Subsequently a^possession notice dated 19.08.2023 under Sec.13(4) has also been sent to the applicant, published and affixed as per documents filed by the respondent bank along with reply statement. The applicant failed to make out any^valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated 19.08.2023 and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Point No.(ii):

¶29

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

¶30

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs,

¶31

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

¶32

(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd doy of september, 2025).

¶33

K^od AR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy v. Union Bank of India

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

Patan Ayub Khan versus Axis Bank

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

State Bank of India versus M/S. E.S. Square Infra Tech

M/S. Yes Bank Limited., versus Mrs. Varthya Shiprah

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Ponnambalam Chandra Sheker