Dismissed

Mrs Korthiwada Anasuya v. Union Bank of India

DRT14 Nov 2025SA/434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the Respondent Bank's possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, claiming it was invalid. The Court found no dispute regarding the receipt of notices and the default in repayment. It held the Bank complied with procedural requirements including newspaper publication and finding no valid ground to quash the notice. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The summary application SA No.434/2024 was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Mrs Korthiwada Anasuya versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶5

SA.No.434./2c24

¶6

Mrs. Korthiwada @ Kodthiwadi Anasuya W/o late Shiva Kumar, aged 58 years, H.No.4-4-32, Subhash Road, Sidipet Mandal, Medak Road, Siddipet-s02 103. . .. Applicant

¶7

I/ersus

¶8

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager Siddipet Main rbanch, Medak Road, Siddipet, Siddipet District. ... Respondent Bank

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri C.Sreedlwr Counselfor Respondent : Ms.Sangeta Jaiswal Reserued on : 17.10.2025 Pronounced on : 14.11.2025 Uploaded on :15.11.2025

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2l challenging the action of the Respondent bank in issuing Possession Notice dt. 14.10.2024 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶12

the Application in brief are as follows:

¶13

availed loan from the Respondent bank is co-applicant and created mortgage in

¶14

respect of the schedule property. Thereafter the borrower and the Applicant could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondent bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice and possession notice to tJle Applicant and the said notices are not legal and valid and not binding on the Applicant. Hence the SA.

¶15

J. The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant along with her son availed housing loan from the Respondent and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan amounts due and the Bank classified the loan account as NPA. The Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.04.2024 to the Applicant. When there was no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt. 14.1O.2024 and the said notice was received by the Applicant and the sarne was affixed on the schedule property and also

¶16

published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the Respondent Bank has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank..

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

has establisLted any ualid ground for setting Notice dt. 14. 1O.2O24 issued bg the Respondent property?

¶20

g^14ilil,7w * 6 iL To whnt relief *

¶21

Wb.,,,,**S-#

¶22

Potnt No.lil:-

¶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

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant and one Manikanta availed housing loan from the Respondent bank and later committed default in repayment of 10an due and the Bank declared the loan account as NpA. The Applicant is not disputing the receipt of demand notice and possession notice.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the said demand notice and possession notice are not valid. To disprove the same, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by ttrem.

¶26

a. The Applicant along with the SA, Iiled demand notice dt. 12.04.2024 issued by the bank. As per the said document, it is clear that the Applicant received demand notice issued by the bank. It is not the contention of the Applicant that she submitted any objections to the said demand notice. In view of the non-compliance of the demand notice by the Applicant, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt. 14.l o.2024 to the Appricant. In fact, the Applicant frled the said possession notice arong with the sA which clearly indicates that the Applicant received the said notice. Arong with the Reply, the Respondent bank fi,ed material documents to establish that the Bank has folowed the procedure in issuing the possession notice. As per the said material documents, it is crear that the said notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced bv the copies of lication filed by the bank and copy of the said notice the schedule property as depicted in the photographs dent Bank. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the t Bank has scrupulously complied with t (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking

¶27

b,,mE#

¶28

possession of the secured asset u/s l3(a) of the SARFAES I Act,2OO2 and so, the said possession notice dt. 14.10.2024 is perfectly legal and valid.. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicant.

¶29

Potnt No.(tl):-

¶30

In the result, sA 434124 is dismissed as there are no merits in the sA. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shalr stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, co,ected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in te open court on this the 14h d.ag of Nouember,, 2O2S)

¶33

sd/_ (c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

ffie
TRUE4OPYPY
u * 1Iltl!1/ffr l
;'5 e:r
0,;ffi
W"r#

¶35

Mrs Korthiwada Anasuya v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Korthiwada Anasuya 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

Stephen Lamination Plant versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Smt. Boddepalli Nirmala

Canara Bank versus Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan

M Ashok versus a P Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mohd. Imtiyaz Ahmed

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbs Industries