Dismissed

Ms Sanjeev Rural Farmer Warehouse v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

DRT21 Aug 2025SA/452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, the tribunal dismissed the applicant's objections regarding NPA classification, service of demand notice, and agricultural land restrictions, upholding the bank's recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application filed by the applicant was dismissed with directions to close pending interlocutory applications.

Ms Sanjeev Rural Farmer Warehouse versus Union Bank of India… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- II}

¶2

AT HYDEMBAD

¶3

DATED THIS^{THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF AUGUST'2025}

¶4

. PRESENT:^{SH. MMESHWAR KoTHE, B'Com'' L LB' (Hons')'M'A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶5

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATIONNO. 452 OF 2023}

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Sanjeev^{Rural Farmer Warehouse} ReD bv ProDrietor^{Mr. C. Sanjeeva-} xiru', n"AOv,^{S/o Ch. Padmanabha ReddY} Aoed 47 vears,^{Occ: Agriculture} zb-asz-aa,^{Housing Board Area} NGO'| ColonY,^NandYal(V) Nandyal District'^{518 501, A.P'}

¶8

.......ApPlicant.

¶9

And

¶10

lJnion Bank of^India 803791, NandYal 3-282, BYrmal^Street Kurnool District,^{ReP. BY} Authorised^Officer.

¶11

.....Respondent.

¶12

Counsel for the^{Appticant: M/s' T. Sridhar ReddY'} Counsel for^{the Respondent: Mr. V. Sethu MadhavaRao'}

¶13

-: CLBlgE:-

¶14

The Applicant filed the^{present SecuritisationApplication u/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act,2OO2 (hereinafterreferred} to as "SARFAESI Act^{2002')assallingthe p-ossession notice} ,,4\t*1

t:,,^rr

sA 45212023

dated 07.10.2023 issued by the 1't respondent bank in respect of SA sched ule property.

¶19

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the respondent bank demanded to handover the physical possession of the schedule property by serving a copy of possession notice dated 77.t0.2023. The possessi two read ins newspapers T":"#:,J'":"H"":,:"'jT*t ; schedule property. The possession notice is not valid under taw as the demand notice allegedly issued on 13.07.2023 has not been served on the applicant. The applicant,s loan cannot be said to be NpA as there was no continuous default for 90 days. The schedule property is an agricultural land and the securitisation proceedings against the said property is hit by Section of 31(i) of the SARFAESi Act.

¶20

The respondent bank filed r

¶21

or the procedure,.,.,"J'l'n""::?ilt :"::l':":JilTi:: thereunder and placed sufficient material in support of its pleadings. It is the contention of the respondent bank that the applicant misappropriated agricultural produce belonging to various borrowers stored in the warehouse unauthorisedly. Applicant created mortgage over the SA schedule property for due repayment of the loanr predse or their eoods .,",J,:':;'J"-::;::r::1"ilH:il: failed to repay the loan amount leading to classification of their accounts as NpA. Thereafter, respondent bank issued demand notice on 73.07.2023 for payment of Rs .7,77,97.324/_ betonging to twenty borrowers. The demand notice was duly served on the applicant and the borrowers. As the applicant failed to ,fM"* l-/ '"

¶22

sA45212023

¶23

repay the^{amountas demandedwithin the statutory period of 60} days, it^{was followed up by possession notice dated07'10'2023'} The demand^{notice was affixed on the securedasset and} published in^{Eenadu and Hindu dailies on 12'10'2013'} Accordingly,^{violation of provisionsof Section13(2) andRules} B(1) and^{8(2) does not arise'}

¶24

Heard both^{side counsel'Perusedthe materialplaced on record'}

¶25

Learned^{counselfor the applicant,while reiterating the pleadings} in the SA,^{prayed for allowing the SA by setting aside the} possession notice^{dated 07't0'2023'}

¶26

Learned counsel^{for the respondentbank prayed for dismissing} the SA as^{the applicant's allegations stood proved to be baseless} inviewoftheevidenceplacedonrecordbytherespondent bank.

¶27

Now the^{points that arise for adjudicationare: -}

¶28

Ll/hether the^{APPlicant made out} anv valid^ground for^quashingthe possession notice dated^{07.1 0.2023} issued under^{section13(4) of} Securitisation^Act?

¶29

ii) To what reliel?

¶30

Point No.(i):

¶31

B. Applicant filed^{the present SA raisingobjectionsoverNPA} classification,violationofSectionl3(2)and31(i)ofthe SARFAESI Act.^{Respondentbank placed Photostat copiesof} postal acknowledgement^{cards containing signaturesof one C'} Sivalakshamma to^{prove service of demand notice dated}

¶32

HKrr'b

¶33

-".:<--,41 41Y'',\tX,//

¶34

41Y'',\tX,// aqt Iq paterltut €6urpaa:o.rd uoltesltunf,as aql ut .ro ,Que1n6al:1 qstlqets€ ^ttleoallt eorroq aq, ^ue urorJ ,i,l Tlil1l]l:'T-"1::3"1,"l stuef,tlddp aql ot 6u!6uolaq lsaratut aql tsulpop pansst seM a3llou uolssassod pau6ndur aql ^llJnf,as ,)ueq luapuodsal aql ol 6ulprof,3v^.lueq luapuodsaJ asnoqe,eM asr u, parors ;::'ifi::jl,"; ;j,ff::[.:; tu$tldde aql teqt luaui ruapuodsar^,rrqrr, ar"r^,'le l s ^ldar^{aqt ur parersrueq} ida ul JalJealaql llneJep pallluit,otr pue asnoqaJe, s,ruelrJdde ul paJols a:npotd lerngln:1:6e ;o uo,res,r,r aopard rsureoe nras 0",.0, ,rno, r, ,r,,nna'ut r,noolX";1il:lt,;:ff^t;t:Lr"t: uI^'llJau, ou seq luno3 sltlt uo eald aql pup ssaleseq r, ,rnr,,oo" aql Jo uollPoalle slqt ,aroJaraqf .vs aq1 rJl ,r,a."'"* paulrelJ sp puel lelnllnllre ^q 'n^{lou pue asnoqajele s! lasse} paJnf,es aql leql oloqd ,,"a "'n Illo{ leelf, sl lI 'luauale$ Ildar aqr or paxauue ,,ro"o ,n'r",a" aql Jo 9t a6ed lP lasse parntras a9J uo g7g7.or.zo parep .tu uolssassod Jo aJnlxlJJP Jo oroLrd e p-,of,al uo paJprd anr"''o' luapuodsal 'puel lernllnsuoe 6uraq rassp *rn,r, ,rf f l,)uPq ro s! vdN sp runof,f,e ,i":I;:::;I:ff:il"rJ:l# 6ullnou )upq luapuodsar Jo u ^u€^{ro aruasq e} "r,-;^{ril",:;:, :.iJ:il::1.;^,,,J,'l'^rJ;} aUl u1 ,(116 r.l,r r af,s tp a^oJdstp ol pled slh'lr Jo dn-1ea.rq aql ourMoqs rueruare";r;;";;': seq luellldde 'asl,lalllo u3^l 'uorretrurssprf, y611 6urpnlcur slu pasler 'Eroz lo EI parep a,rrou pupuJap aqr ro ,.,'o't'"to o ^ue u 'lup)lldde leqr 'ase3 aql rou s, rJ^.af,rrou "rr^{ro ,r",0,r",'"'al} seJnleuols eql Jo leqr lou ruatunf,op p!es aqr palndsrp ,o.' ""o seq luelllddv ruauiarers irdaJ aqr or paxauue a.,"o"o 1",.,"1rr' aqt Jo 6z a6pd le tzoz.lo.Er

¶35

ezoz lzgb vs

¶36

sA 45212(J23

¶37

respondent bank against the secured^{interest for recoveryof its} dues from the borrowers^{whosestockshave been stored in the} applicant's ware house^which were^{reportedly misapPropriated} by the applicant, the SA^{is devoid} of^{any merit and llable to be} dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

In the result, the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending if any, shall} stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this^order to^the Parties^{concerned and} upload in web Site.

¶42

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 21'l doy ol August,2025.)

¶43

k=r' WAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Sanjeev Rural Farmer Warehouse v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sanjeev Rural Farmer Warehouse v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar