Dismissed

Kompelli Jyothi v. Union Bank of India

DRT10 Jun 2025SA/436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a vacate notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the notice was legal and binding as the bank complied with statutory provisions and auction procedures after the borrower defaulted.

What did the court decide?

The application for challenging the vacate notice under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act (SA No.436 of 2023) was dismissed.

Kompelli Jyothi versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER SA.No.436 OF 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

KompelliJyothi, Wo Srinu, R/o H.No.499l8/1, Suryavanshi colony, Nalgonda Town And Mandal, Nalgonda district, Telangana State - 5OB OO1.

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Union Bank of India, Nidam,anoor Branch, (28101 ) D.N-o.6-i84, Main road, Opp: nRCVa, r\roamanur, Nalgonda district, Telangana State - 5OB 278.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the parties:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : Shri PSV^prasad Respondent : Sri Ch. Srinivasa Rao

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The applicant filed securitisation Apprication under section 17 0f the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financlal Assets and Enforcement of : 002 challenging the Vacate /f/r^{'"U.1:+r1:'-:nr,} notice dated 1 ers passed by the District T)ozt i$r"i E^{10 JUN?ffi}

¶13

(sA.No.a3612023)

¶14

Collector& District Mag istrate, Nalgonda district for vacating the schedule prem ises by the applicant.

¶15

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶16

The Applicant availed the roan from the respondent bank by creating mortgage in respect of schedure property. As the appricant sustained loss due to covid-19, she could not repay the loan amount. So the respondent bank invoked the provisions of sARFAESI Act and issued demand notice dated 23.08.2022 to the applicant by classifying the account as NpA. Thereafter the respondent bank fired civir suit vide os'No'30/2022 0n the fire of Senior civir Judge, Nargonda district at Miryalguda. Thereafter the respondent bank approached the District Collector, Nalgonda for evicting the Applicant from schedule property. The respondent bank has also issued Auction notice dated 20.07.2023. Subsequentry the District corector issued vacate noticed dated 1S.11.2023 for vacating the schedule property and for handing over the possession to the authorised officer of the respondent bank on or before 0I.12.2023. The respondent bank committed irregurarities and viorations in issuing the above notices. Hence the SA.

¶17

¶18

. ,,"-

¶19

1. The Respol-rdent bank fired replysibtement contending that in view of the defa{tliomnfrittegllyr$rp apptiiant in repaying rhe toan amounr, the respo\qF{'q;9ank issued.duSgFd norice dated 23.08.2022 under

¶20

(SA. No.43Gl2023)

¶21

section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the appricant and the said notice was arso pubrished in two newspapers. Thereafter the possession notice dated 25.I1.2022 was issued to the applicant and subsequenry E-auction sare notice dated 13.09.2023 was issued to Applicant and said notice was published in English and Telugu newspapers and on L3.L0.2023, E-auction was conducted and in the auction sri varandasu sandeep patir was successfur. Thereafter the respondent bank approached the District Collector, Nalgonda who in turn got issued vacate notice dated lS.LL.2023 for vacating the schedure premises' Hence it is contended that the said notice is legal and valid and so the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard the arguments.

¶23

Now the point for consideration is

¶24

i) Whether the Applicants has established any valid grounds for challenging the Vacate Notice dated 15.11.2023 issued by the District Collector, Natgonda for vacating the schedule property?

¶25

ii) To What Retief?

¶26

Poant no.i)

¶27

The r are that the Applicant availed loan from thereafter committed default in

¶28

repayi nt was declared as NpA and

¶29

(sA.No.436/2023)

¶30

respondent bank issued demand notice dated 23.08.2022 to the applicant. As per the contentions of respondent bank, the auction of the schedule property was arso conducted on 13.10.2023 and Sri V. Sandeep Patil became successful bidder and thereafter the respondent bank took steps in taking the possession of the schedure property in order to handover the same to the auction purchaser.

¶31

The present SA is filed on 29.Lt.2023. By that date, the auction was arready concruded but the appricant has not chailenged the auction conducted by the respondent bank on 13.10.2023. The Applicantis only disputingthe vacate notice dated 15.11.2023 issued to the applicant for vacating the schedule premises.

¶32

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has scrupulousry folrowed the procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rures made thereunder whire issuing notices to the applicant encrosed the rerevant documents to the counter fired in the stay application. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 23.08.2023, the respondent bank issued demand notice and the said notice was arso pubrished in two newspapers. The said notice was received by the applicant, shesigned on the office copy of the said notice. The Possesglen -notice was affiied on the schedule property as depicted--.iff ..J-.. the copies 3 otographs filed by the respondent. rne sa o/inail.r,"r",r"*3b\ ".; rr;;;; ;",;;;;;; news pa tr[oeHrilba7b, ,fti].uroondent bank with copies of

¶33

(SA. No.436/2023)

¶34

paper publications filed by respondent bank. Thereafter the respondent bank issued sare notice dated 13.09.20.23 for conducting the auction of schedule property on 13.10.2023. The impugned eviction notice was issued by the respondent bank on 15.11.2023. The said notice was issued in pursuance of the proceedings datec 24'04.2023 issued by the District coilector, Nargonda for taking physical possession of the schedure property. In the said notice 15 days time was given to the appricant. Admittedry the notice was received by the applicant. The said notice was issued by the respondent after conducting the auction of schedule property, in order to hand over the possession of the schedule property to the auction purchaser. The said notice dated 15,11.2023 was issued subsequent to the auction by complying the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures and is perfecily legal and binding on the Applicant. So I see no ground warranting the interference of this Tribunal to interfere with thevacate notice dated 15.11.2023 issued by the Respondent bank in respect of schedule property. So there are no merits in the SA, hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶35

Point 7. In the ,frrt, E4+pOr(ffi is

¶36

(SA.No.436/2023)

¶37

B. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed

¶38

of, No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the loth lune, 2025)

¶41

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

//F- r)
u *' 10,|uil
r#, d ,.'
Na,

¶43

TRUE COPY

¶44

,"",t4ffi11, DRT-L HYDER(BAr'^'/

Kompelli Jyothi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kompelli Jyothi 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

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Sri Kashpe Srinivas versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Thuralapati Sai Chandra Vardhan

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bheesetti Ramu

Smt Rizwana Begum versus Union Bank of India