This order dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a borrower challenging the bank's action to take physical possession of mortgaged property under Section 14 SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal upheld the bank's compliance with notice and publication requirements.
Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THISTHE13THDAY OF OCTOBER,2025
PRESENT: SH.RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.com, L.LB(Hons ), M A' PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization ApplicationNo.89OF 2023
M/s Gote Consultants Rep by its ProprietorMr' SunkaraRamu S/o S. Pentaiah,aged about57 Years Occ: Business,situatedat H.No.8-3 -9o3/3 I Al3 / F -E7 Omega Apartments,Nagarjuna Nagar Colony Ameerpet, Hyderabad -500 073
Versus Union Bank ofIndia Rep by its AuthorizedOffcer Sanjeeva ReddyNagarBranch Situated at 246l3'dMainRoad Hyderabad 500038
.......Applicant.
....Respondent.
Counsel for theAPP|icants : Mr. D. Raghavulu Counsel forResPondent : Ms.D- Sangeetalaiswal
-:Q-B-DEB:-
Page 2 of4
sA No.89/2023
12 lakhs in 202L from respondent bank for development of business. against mortgage of application schedule property. He suffered from ill health due to Covid and hence unable to pay some instalments. Without considering request to grant time to regularize the account, the respondent bank suddenly proceeded to obtain Warrant u/s 14 for taking physical possession of the property, by suppressing pendency of SA. Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice and publish and affix the possession notice and hence the SA.
Page 3 of4
sA No.89/2023
ii) To what relief?
Point No,(i):
Page 4 of 4
sA No.89/2023
Point No.(ii):
(fyped to my dictotion by the ps, corrccted, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the ljth doy of October, 2025).
86'totr ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to set aside the possession action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the demand notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice under Section 13(4) were validly served and published as required by the Act and Rules.
6 provisions across 6 enactments
M/s Gote Consultants Rep by Proprietor Mr. Sunkara Ramu
Union Bank of India Rep by Authorized Officer
RAMESHWAR KOTHE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
