Dismissed

Sairam Constructions v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

DRT8 Dec 2025SA/468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under the SARFAESI Act challenging the validity of a Pre-Sale Notice was dismissed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the Respondent Bank duly followed the statutory procedure regarding demand, possession, and sale notices, finding no merit in the Applicant's complaints.

What did the court decide?

Application SA.46A/2C.24 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sairam Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2C,25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.46A/2C.24

¶4

M/s Saiaram Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor:Kolluru Shoba W/o Kolluru Prem Kumar, Aged 68 years, H.No.6-8-g5, Sagaraveedhi, Brahmanawada, Hanamkonda-5060o 1. ... Applicant

¶5

Versus Union Bank of India Rep. by its Authorized Officer, 249 /sRT, lst floor, Main road, SR Nagar, Hyderabad-s0O 038. ... Respondent Counsel for tle Applicant : Si A. Vijag lstmar Counselfor Respondent : Sn Snniuasa Rao Chakrala Reserued on :06.11.2025 Pronounced on :05.12.2025 Uploaded on :08. i2.2025

¶6

ORDER

¶7

This Application is filed u/s.t7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securit5r Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2oo2) challenging the Pre-Sale Notice dt.30. Lo.2o24 ulr 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2oo2 and possession Notice dt'o2'17'2o23 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule p{gperty and tordgglare the s€une as null and void.

¶8

' . ;,!. ;'i ""i'r ..,"tl
:. ,:1. ir,
2. , ,"The averrne-nts maitr.Ufi the Applicant in brief are as follows:
:,' " i1
: ':. I B ijil, ?y.fr :: i,,
. ,,
.. .-,, ,i.:.
..':) i .,:':1, ,1,, ,;; "
,n,:,. ---.. .1,,: _,i-n
' " i'i: {'"'':;;:iifr' '::)f
" ''..
" -i ' -,.--::r:,:.1iF *

¶9

The Applicant availed rerm loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property and due to financial crisis, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Respondent Bank classified the loan account of the Appricant as NpA. without considering the huge payments made by the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway issued the impugned Pre-sale Notice dt.30. ro.2o24 and the sarne was neither published in newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not pubrished in daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property as per Rule 8(1)(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent did not obtain valuation report from the approved valuer ofthe Bank before issuing the impugned sale notice and the reserve price fixed against the schedule property is very low. Hence the SA.

¶10

.). The Respondent liled their Repry denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that Sairam constructions represented by is Proprietor Mrs.Kolluru sobha availed Term loan of Rs.40 lakhs from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule propertSr and later committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent on 29.og.2o2s as per the guidelines of RBI. The Respondent issued demand notice dt.30.08.2023 u/s r3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the same was acknowredged by the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice on rr.o9.2023 and 02.11.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and it was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent has duly forlowed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking possession of the schedule pr.operty. Thereafter the Respondent issued the impugned. Sale Notice at.SO. f O:qpZ+ u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2OO2 and, sent the same to.tie,A,pplicarrtthrorgtigiaa.no.t and pubrished the same in daily newspaperb. qg4ldentn also obtained valuation report on s3 #t' i' .t 2

¶11

04.02.2025 and basing on the said valuation report, fixed reserve price against the schedule property. Thereafter the Bank also issued sale Notice dt.03.03.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property but the sarne was failed for want of bidders. Accordingry, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA as there are no violations.

¶12

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

¶13

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶14

wtrctler tle Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the Pre- N otice dt. 3 O. 1 0. 2 0 2 4 is sued. bg tle Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶15

ii. To what relief?

¶16

Point lVo.(if:-

¶17

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

¶18

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan accounts of the Applicant as NpA.

¶19

Applicant is that the Respondent has not under the provisions of SARFAESI in issuing demand notice,

¶20

possession notice and pre-sale notice to the Applicant and so, said notices are null and void.

¶21

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant.

¶22

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply frled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.30.08.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. post and the same was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued^possession Notice dt.02.l1.2023 and the same was received by the Applicant as evidenced by her signature on the copy of the said possession notice Iiled by the bank. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication frled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph liled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued the impugned Pre-Sale Notice dt.30.1O.2O24 u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for giving an opportunit5r to the Applicant to redeem the secured asset and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the same was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank.. In fact, the ica1t filed copy ofthe said pre-sale notice along with the SA liled by him. ent Bank obtained valuation report d1.O4.O2.2O25 from the ap of the Bank and issued Auction Sale Notice dt. $pSPE)?fi7f r co*, auction of the schedule property

¶23

e-.-

¶24

but, the said auction was not materialized, for want of bidders. However, the Applicant has not challenged the said Sale Notice.

¶25

1 1' Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. So, the said Pre-Sale Notice dt.3o. to.2o24 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶26

Polnt No.(il):-

¶27

t2. In the result, sA 468 /24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶28

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

¶29

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed. bg her, 9grye_cted,^{signed and pronounced.bg me in the open} court on this the Bth dag of December, 202s).

¶31

sd/-
(c. coPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
0 I orc 20fr
0

Sairam Constructions v. Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sairam Constructions 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

Yemapalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Anuradha Pothuganti

State Bank of India versus Sri. Amand Rajashwar

Union Bank of India versus Dappu Yadagiri

Mr Palla Kiran Kumar versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Thota Supraja D/o Thota Hanumantha Rao versus Bank of Maharashtra