Dismissed

Rajesh Janyavula v. Bank of India

DRT27 Mar 2025SA/417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application challenging auction and possession notices, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The court held that issues regarding demand notices, possession notices, and NPA classification were already adjudicated in a previous suit and were barred by res judicata.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Rajesh Janyavula versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. 417 OF 2023

¶5

Rajesh lanyavu la S/o Sri Mohan Rao Aged 52 years Occ: Travel Business H. No. 5-24-189, Ptot N.96 Seshala Coop Housing Society East Marredpally Secunderabad-500026 Telangana State.

¶6

.......Appticant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bank of India Vasavi Naga r Bra nch Plot No.28, Laxmi Enclave Lane Opp: Furniture Wold Vasavi Nagar, Secu ndera bad-500 015 Tela ngana State Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Counset for the Applicant : Mr. Dishi. Bhattacharjee. Counsel for Respondent : Mr. K.V. Nageswara Rao.

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement ot Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act 2OO2") assailing the Auction Sale Notice

¶13

sa,4L7 12023

¶14

¶15

dated 05.09,2023,^possession notice^{dated 22.09.2021and} demand notice dated 06.04.2021^{issued against the SA schedule} property by the resPondent bank.

¶16

The case of the applicant as^{per the averments in the SA, in brief} is that he availed a housing^{loan of Rs.1.10crores in March 2014} and has been^quite regular^{in repaymentas per the agreed} terms. Respondent classified the^{loan account as NPAwithout} giving due regard or consideration to the RBI^guidelines. Respondent bank changed interest frequently^{contrary to the} promise of application of fair rate of interest. Respondent^bank issued cryptic reply to the applicant's^{objectionsto the demand} notice dated O6.04.202f despite bringing^{variouslapses to the} notice of the respondent. Thereafter,^{applicantaddresseda} rejoinder to the reply to^{respondent'sletter dated 07.05.202L.} Respondent issued a^{possession notice} dated^{18.09.2021and} another on 22.09,202! without^{following the due procedureas} contemplated in the SARFAESI Act and the^Rules,2002. Applicant's^proposals to close the account under^{OTS did not find} favour with the respondent bank and instead^{resulted in} securitisation^{proceedings.Applicant has not been served with} the demand notice u/s 13(2),^possession notice u/s^{13(4) as} prescrlbed under Rule 8(1). Applicant was in deep financial loss due to closure of business on account of Covid.19^{Pandemic. The} respondent bank is under obligation to^provide relief in^view of Covid.19 Pandemic including reclassification/restructuring of account as^per RBI^guldelines.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement. The averments of the reply statement in brief, are that respondent bank flled a common OA for recovery of Rs.36,32,504.22Ps relating to home

¶18

. ,'l*9-r..,..$ .!.-I]J,

¶19

¶20

sa,4t7/2o23

¶21

loan account with a loan account of Khairatabad Branch. Jt was made a,uu.',"^tY rr.oz.2ozo uno ou 11 the ?pplicant that RBI circurars dated were meaal for MSME but to appricant,s -" ,ou"t]l'o. NpA initia[y o, ,r., r'^{jtt-o'nt' Applicanttloan} account became and subseguently on 31.05.2018 and upon payment o, an"'l'u account was upgraded to the standard on". ooo,-^o-1i-t' .the loan account has i-n fact been restructured .r.n ,.,ftl]-t" 0r.01.2019. or" a" as per RBr circurar dared again became ,r". or::.'lt^'il"puvm"nt "lj,jl,..l"ratorium^the loan account once second time u, noa b-Y^29.'O2 '2020 ' Hence restructuring for a informed ," ,n"-"rr--Tnsidered^{All these} facts have been respondent detailed repry dated 78.os.2ozr. aor,o. ,rull,l'oe lated moratorium of six months was extended to the apptica-: in two spells Even after mr appticanth ,orn "..ounlT due to deFaurt ,n o"rr"-lu.t-l'" 'oo "r'"n*'"r::::l;l ,.;Tll"'tr""'":;;."-,:*i';"':,::',::"1"'i;,",1",'i'# Interesvpenar ,n,".u., ,r'1J'0""d^{to the respondent} bank. tnutn"o as per the terms of loan. The objections raised by ,, applicant in connection with the possession noti." outll adjudicated by this '- Trib) .22'09'2027.^{have already} been vide ordei dated 20.06.2023 in sA.2r7 of ,olr. nunl'n'l tu't'nn similar ' issues amounts to resjudica and cannot ou ;" r-agitated in the present SA.

¶22

It is further submitted thi respondent bank complied with the provisions ", ,o*roJ:,tn" Act and the Rules thereunder in serving, affixing and publi of impugned sale notice dated o5.0g.2023, p.oof o, n..tation is placed on recoi'd along with the repry statement. ,o"rul , auction proceedings schedlled on

'lY"*

-,,

sA.4L7/2023

09.10'2023 pursuant to impugned sare notice courd not be proceeded with in view of the conditional stay order passed by this Tribunal dated 06.10.2023 in IA.3O77 of 2023 in the SA. Accordingly, the SA becomes infructuous to this extent.

¶28

Both counser reported no orar arguments. perused the written arguments filed by both parties and the material brought on record.

¶29

Now the points that arise for adjudication are: _

¶30

ll/hether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the measures initiated by the respondent bank ugainst the SA schedule property under the provisions of Securitisation Act?

¶31

ii) To what relieJ?

¶32

Point No.(i)t

¶33

Appricant fired the present sA chailenging the Sare Notice dated 05.09.2023 fixing the auction sale of the SA schedule property on 09.10.2023 besides raising selF_same issues i.e., possession notice dated 22.09.202L and demand notice dated 06.04.2021 which have been subject matter of 5A.277/2021. The said SA has been dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2023. Hence these issues are not taken up for consideration in the present SA.

¶34

B. As already brought out . proceed n s s h a ve n ot,ljffi:: : Jiff.".i i;ilfi^.:H:l"j order dated 06.10.2023 in IA.3O77 of 2023;[here is nothing left /)v' Lz^=-KYtS

¶35

sA.4t7l2023

¶36

for adjudlcation in so far as the Sale Notice dated 05.09.2023 is concerned.

¶37

As regards the issues raised in connection with the possession notice dated 22.09.2027, demand notice dated 06.04.2021 and the classification of loan account as NpA, the objections raised by the applicant have already been addressed and a considered order has been passed on merits by this Tribunal in the previous SA.ZL7/202L. The self-same issues cannot be raised again and again under the principle of resjudicata.

¶38

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Point No.(ii)l

¶40

In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismtssed.

¶41

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

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web^portal. (Dictoted to the SUho, signed ond pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the 2f doy ol Motch,2025).

¶43

/frys"r (MI'IESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Rajesh Janyavula v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Janyavula v. 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

Smt Yalamanchili Vandhana versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India(e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Gote Consultants

Sri Mohan Babu Vuppu versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Preet Work Constructions

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S M P Enterprises

Akhil Ghanta versus Shriram City Union Finance