Dismissed

Stephen Lamination Plant v. Union Bank of India

DRT13 Nov 2025SA/431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of this Section 77 application filed by a mortgagor challenging recovery proceedings and a pre-sale notice. Finding that the debtor had a grievance pending adjudication before the civil court under Section 14, the Tribunal dismissed the application as lacking merits.

What did the court decide?

The Section 77 application was dismissed as there were no merits due to the presentation of a Section 14 case.

Stephen Lamination Plant versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1sTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2.,25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.4g1/2e23

¶4

M/s Stephen Lamination plant f.p^{UV its Prop.Smt. Bala Sailaja,} W/o michal Bala, aged 42 years, R/o H.No.S-2-673/45, Road No.11, Uday nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 034.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India, The Authorizedofficer Stressed assets Recovery branch, 2'd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenit5r Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-soO O95.

¶8

... Respondent Bank

¶9

Counsel for tLrc Applicant : Sri B.Koteswara Rao Counselfor Respondent bank ; Sn D.S.Pauan kumqr Reserued on : 16 .10.2025

¶10

Pronounced on : 13.1 1.2025 Uploaded on : 13.11.2025

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Application is filed u/s.77 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial As t of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Ac.t,2 r, ;i'i ! the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking phi,sical - poss'essio""fu4: it;;i , gt [ schedule propert5r thLr' r vq6rrough advocate commissioner aqd-also' the t;'fttgrrlotice dt.10.11 .2023 issued by the -:-r. 1 3 IJIIU ,rn,r^.,il ltas null and void.

¶13

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶14

The Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter could not pay some instalments due to covid-19. So the loan account was classified as NpA by the Respondent bank and the Bank issued demand notice dt.o1.0z.2o2a to the Applicant. To the said demand notice, the Applicant sent reply on 22.07.2023. Without giving any reply, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.15.09.2023 u/s 13(4) of the sARFAESI Act,2002. Thereafter, the Respondent also issued sale notice dt. lO.ll.2023 intimating about the sale of the schedule property within 30 days. The Respondent proceeded for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner issued vacate notice dt. 15. 11.2023 for taking over the possession of the schedule property within 15 days. The Applicant is willing to clear the entire dues if one year time is granted. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent liled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.01.02.2123 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the same was received by the Applicant. To the said demand notice, the Applicant issued reply dt.2o.OT.2023 to the bank and in response to the said letter, the Respondent issued reply notice on 03.O8.2023. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.15.09.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2002 and the said possession notice was published il,tryq q"ity newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property.,. Thereafter, ,.the Respondent issued 30 days sale notice dt. 10.11.2923 to the Appligagt. The , Applicant also filed writ petition No.291 , 19/23 chaiL.rgirg'tfr!, :.. ;.::: demand notice dt.Ot.OZ.2023 and possession J"'6,S.{UU.^{rrys.zo9qiandthe said writ petitionwas dismissed} : Sait s but the sai( l fact wa s supres,sed by the Applicant. The Bank also iled . . , il.:-

¶16

petition before the Ld.cMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the sARFAESI Act' 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedure property through advocate commissioner. Thus the bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rures made thereunder and there are no violations. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank. Perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. uhether tle Applicant has established ang ualid ground.s for challenging the Pre Sale Notice dt.10.11.2o23 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶20

ii Wletler the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the steps initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertg through ad.vocate commissioner?

¶21

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶22

Polnts IVo.(i)&(iil:-

¶23

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

¶24

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and the loan account was declared as NPA. So, the Respondent bank issued demand notice dt.O1.07.2O23 and the Applicant received the said notice and issued reply to the said demand notice and the Bank issued their reply o_n-03108:: the Bank issued possession notice 1.,a

¶25

dt. ts.os.2;Oib ana^liFe said was received by the Applicant. In fact, :..'.'

¶26

the Respondent also issued e notice dt. 10.11.2023 and the same

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without giving suflicient time to the Applicant for repayment, the Respondent is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank are illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and the bank also followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶29

The Respondent Bank enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply frled by them to establish that the Bank scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank served demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and the same was published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the Bank issued Rule 8(6) notice dt. 10.11.2023 intimating the Applicant that the auction in respect of the schedule^property will^be conducted after expiry 30 days. The said notice is issued to the^Applicant only for giving an opportunity to redeem the schedule^{property by payng} the entire dues and so, the said 30 days sale notice^{is perfectlylegal and} valid and binding on the Applicant.

¶30

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI^{Act, 2002, after issuance} of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2,the secured} creditor is Alllbdi$'to approach the^{concernedDistrictMagistrate or Chief} e.' ,...:-'.

¶31

Judicipl !{qdfSka!i, f,or;qt<ing^{physical possessionof the securedasset.} In the ift$tant ""io-( "ft..ti"\gng demand notice and Possession notice to the:Afi'ptcaptn qfrp nesporid'edt U.itg^{securedcreditor,approachedLd'} cur'rflrur-lp*rllklffir"rui;irr" t4 or^{the sARFAESIAct,2oo2 ror} 4

¶32

. ":'

¶33

lii:...., .,..:.-

¶34

.d-. '' -' :;l ' i i.:.<sup>- '''i':'"'''';t''.-.'-,!J "+_t::;i- =f;r'.

¶35

appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CMM, Nampally after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner issued notice dt. 15.1 r.2023 to the Appricant to vacate the schedule property. so considering arl the circumstances, I am of the opinion that that the Pre-SaIe Notice dt. 10. 1r.2o2T issued by the bank and also the proceedings initiated by the Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner are perfectly regal and valid. These points are answered accordingly.

¶36

Point No.(iili)t

¶37

In the result, SA 43I 123 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

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

¶39

t4. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dctated to the P.s, transcribed-bg her, conected., signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 13'h dag of Nouember,2O25).

¶41

sd/-
(c. coPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFrICER
^^T-1,
'IYDERABAO.

Stephen Lamination Plant v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stephen Lamination Plant 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

Sai Balaji Function Hall versus State Bank of India

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud

Canara Bank versus Smt. Boddepalli Nirmala

Canara Bank versus Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan