Dismissed

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises v. Union Bank of India

DRT21 Oct 2025SA/442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the sale notice and disruption of physical possession proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad examined whether the Respondent Bank followed due statutory procedure. The Tribunal held that the Bank complied with the rules regarding notices and auctions.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed by the applicant to set aside the sale proceedings is dismissed with consequential directions.

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.442/2023

¶5

M/s. Bhaskara Enterprises Rep. by its Prop. Veerlapati Yadagiri S/o. Kondaiah, Aged about 51years, Male, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-6-2 1 5, Ravindranagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District-SO8o0 1

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mahabubnagar Region, Nalgonda Branch - II, Situated at RP Road, Near Clock Tower, Nalgonda District - 508001

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant D. Roghatrulu Counsel for the Respondent Sangeeto Jabutal Reserued on 29.O9.2025 Pronounced on 21.10.2025 Uploaded to Website on 21.10.2025

¶11

.:ORDERi

¶12

I . The Applicant filed tJ:e present Securitization Application under section $pt,^{challengingthe Sale Notice dated29.11.2023} issued bv hxing the auction of the application and also the action of the Respondent O2.2O24 in C2 I 6319 I 2023 on the file trate, Nalgonda, for taking physical n o{,the application sq, property. :- ii. j'] '. . .\ ",i-,d:,^...i "ir:--:a; . "- ''^:' /;'".'', ...:^: .:i \l*.t i/ |-;_ili'rr!.'i.'

¶13

SA.No.442/2023

¶14

The averments made by the Applicant in the application, in brief, are as under:-

¶15

i) The Applicant has availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank to develop his business by mortgaging the application schedule property as security in favour of the Respondent Bank. After availing the loan, the Applicant paid some EMI regularly but later on due to sudden loss in his business he could not pay the loan amount to the Respondent Bank and the Respondent Bank classilied the loan account of the Applicant as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶16

ii) The Respondent Bank did not serve Demand Notice and Possession Notice on the Applicant. The Respondent Bank has failed to affix the Possession Notice on the schedule property and has also failed to publish the Possession Notice in two newspapers. The Respondent bank without serving Pre-Sale Notice on the Applicant, as contemplated under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules, 2002, has issued E-Auction Notice dated 23.08.2019 fixing the auction of the schedule property on 25.09.2019. Immediately the Applicant approached the Respondent Bank and requested for grant of time for settling outstanding dues. The Respondent Bank assured that they will postpone the said auction. However, the Respondent Bank again issued E-Auction Notice dated 29.11.2023 fixing the auction^{of the} property on 29.12.2023. The Respondent Bank has failed to affix auction notice on the schedule property as contemplated 8(7) of the Rules 2002. The Respondent Bank has also blish the E-Auction Notice dated 29.11.2023 in^two in^{compliance of Rule 9(1) of the Rules2OO2. The}

¶17

2 1 08.ffi6na"frii""r. without^{followingdue procedure as laid down} thp.';ISARFAESI Act, has obtained the orders^dated in C2 16319 12023 on the file of Ld. District^Collector

¶18

arid Mag te, Nalgonda, for taking^{physical possessionof the} edule property. Hence the S.A

¶19

S'A.No.442/2023

¶20

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are as under:-

¶21

The Applicant after availing the credit facility of Rs.40,00,000/from the Respondent Bank by creating security interest over the application schedule property in favour of the Bank, failed to repay the loan amount. The Respondent Bank classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset^(NPA) on 30.^{1 1} .20^{18 and issued} Demand Notice dated 04.12.2018 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI^Act. The said notice has been duly served on the Applicant.^As the Applicant failed to repay the entire outstanding dues^{even after} receipt of Demand Notice, the Respondent Bank issued Possession Notice dated 05.03.2019 u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI^{Act. Thesaid} Possession Notice has been duly served on the Applicant, affixed on the schedule property and thereafter^published in "Mana Telangana" and "Telangana Today" on^10.03.2019. Since^the Applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues even after^receiptof Possession Notice, the Respondent Bank^{issued Pre-Sale Notice} dated 01.12.2023 which is^{personallyserved on the Applicant.The} Respondent Bank thereafter^proceeded for the^{sale and issuedE-} Auction Notice dated 29.11.2023 fixing auction of the^schedule property on 29.12.2023. The Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI^{Act, and the Rules} made thereunder while enforcing the^{procedure against application} schedule property. The^present S.A^{whichis devoidof merits, is} liable to be dismissed.

¶22

sel for the Applicant. Ld. Counsel^{for the Respondent} Written Arguments reiterating the^{version of the} supra, and submitted that the auction^{of the} 2 t4gnaml ** property scheduled on 29.12.2023 has failed and Bank has also not^proceeded for taking^physical . -r ' ll.^the application schedule^property and^{prayedfor the} present S.A.

¶23

¶24

SA.No.442/2023

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶26

Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶27

ii) To what relieP

¶28

Polnt No.lil)t

¶29

The Applicant has not disputed availing of credit facilities from the Respondent Bank to deverop his business by mortgaging application schedule property in favour of the Respondent Bank. The Applicant has also admitted that he could not pay the loan amount to the Respondent Bank due to sudden loss in his business and as such his loan account was classilied by the Respondent Bank as Non-performing Asset (NpA). Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent Bank, without serving statutory notices on the Applicant, has proceeded for the sale of application schedule property by issuing E-Auction Notice dated 29.1L.2O23 by fixing the date of auction on 29.12.2023. He further contended that the Respondent Bank has also failed to affix the Possession Notice and E-Auction Notice on the application schedule property and the Respondent Bank has also not obtained valuation of the property from the approved varuers. He further contended that the Respondent Bank has also failed to publish the E-Auction Notice dated 29.11.2023 in two leading newspapers. He has also contended that the Respondent Bank without following the due procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, has proceeded u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and obtained orders dated 2O.O2.2O24 District Collector and District Magistrate, Nalgonda, in 16319 12023 for taking^physical possession of the sch property.

¶30

b^{p3'1cBEi.dMIa.E} I for the Respondent Bank contended the i'duly followed the procedure laid down under the ij,:,{:"""o'"'

¶31

SA,No.442/2023

¶32

SARFAESI Act, and the Rules made thereunder while proceeding against the application schedure property and to substantiate her contentions she has relied upon the material documents filed along with Reply Statement of the Respondent Bank.

¶33

I have perused the Demand Notice dated O4.L2.2Olg and copies of postal acknowledgment cards filed by the Respondent Bank in its material documents, which clearly establish that the said Demand Notice has been duly served on the Applicant. The Respondent bank has also hled Possession Notice dated OS.O3.2O 19 along with acknowledgment copies, which amply prove that the Respondent Bank has duly served the Possession Notice on the Applicant. The Respondent Bank has also fi1ed the copies of photographs depicting the affixture of Possession Notice on the secured asset and copies of publication of Possession Notice in English and vernacular language ne\Mspapers dated 10.03.2019. From the said documents it is very clear that the Demand Notice and^possession Notice are duly served on the Applicant and the Respondent Bank has affixed and published the Possession Notice in the English and vernacular language newspapers as contemplated under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶34

As regards the contentions raised by the Applicant with regard to non_ service of Sale Notice under Rule 8(6), non-affixture of the said Sale Notice on the secured asset as contemplated under Rule g(7), non_ obtaining of valuation report from the approved valuer in respect of the schedule property under Rule 8(5), and non-publication of E_Auction Notice in two newspapers etc., are concerned, the Respondent Bank relevant material proofs to establish compliance of the [ons^{of law.However, I am not inclined} to delve into the the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank in her on has for of the application schedule property.

¶35

SA.No.442/2023

¶36

In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while proceeding against the application schedule property being the secured asset to enforce securiqr interest under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Applicant has failed to make out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, against the application schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour ofthe Respondent Bank.

¶37

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶38

1 1. In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictoted to the Privote Secretdry, tdnscribed by heL coffected, signed ond prcnounced by me in the open court on this the 21, ddy ol October, 2025),

¶41

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

F 'qN
; zl,,nzw In
.9a
^ S
K&mdP

¶43

JRUE,,gOPY
Ll, g1"- _!:--
A*tRffinr
DRT.I, HYA5RABAD.

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Sree Krishna Tractors

Canara Bank versus Sri. Rishikanth Varma

Ganneboina Vanitha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Om Sri Bhavani Industries versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Dugyala Venkat Rao versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Sri Udaygiri Muralidhar versus State Bank of India