Dismissed

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRT14 Oct 2025SA/94/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application challenging an e-auction, the tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of procedural violation regarding notice and possession under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Having found notices served and publication completed, the court allowed the bank to proceed and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No. 94/2025 is dismissed.

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar versus… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF^OCTOBER,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.Com,L.LB.(Hons.), 14 A} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application^{No.94OF 2025}

¶4

Nl/s Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop. Sri Naveen Kumar^Pampary S/o P. Gopal, Aged about 37^years Occ: Business, Gender: 14ale Situated at Plot No.2/A Sai Baba Nagar Kukatpally, Medchal, Hyderabad 500072

¶5

....APPlicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of^I ndia Rep by its authorized officer Asset Recovery Branch situated at #249/3RT 1"t Floor, Main Road, SR Nagar Hyderabad 500038

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants :^{Mr. TD. Raghavulu} Counsel for Respondent bank : Ms.Sangeeta laiswal

¶10

-:0_8_D_EB:-

¶11

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitlzation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the proceedings and measures of the respondent under the Act including e-auction fixed on 27.03.2025 pursuant to sale notice dated 13.02.2025 and advocate commissioner notice dated 77-O2.2025 in Crl.MP No.26212025 on the file of learned Chief Jud icial Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶12

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the respondent bank sanctioned CC limit of Rs.25 lakh and Covjd loan of Rs.S lakh against

¶13

',4"tn -- . ,' ' ' f''rtt' -'

¶14

page 2 of 4

¶15

sA No.94/2025

¶16

mortgage of application schedule property as security. Due to financial problems, business losses on account of Covid-19 pandemic, he was unable to pay some instalments. Without considering the request the respondent bank classified the account as NpA. Subsequent to proceedings initiated by the bank the applicant paid an amount of Rs.8.35 lakhs. The respondent failed to serve demand notice, possession notice, publish and affix the possession notice, serve, publish and affix the e-auction sale notice. The respondent bank failed to follow Rules 3, 8(1), 8(2), 8(6), B(7) and 9(1) of the Securlty interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶17

The respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly are that all the payments made by the applicant are reflected in the statement of account. Due to irregular payments, the account became NpA as per RBI guidelines. The respondent bank filed OA No.966/2022. The demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale notice were served on applicant. Possession notice and sale notice were published and affixed. Valuation report was obtained from approved valuer. The advocate commissioner appointed in crl.MP No.262/2025 issued notice to the applicant to vacate the premises. The respondent bank has followed due procedure of law and therefore SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

The right of applicant advancing arguments was forfeited as per docket order dated 09.09.2025 after affording sufficient opportunity. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank. Perused the material brought on record.

¶19

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent bank while relteratinq " the facts- \i \rr!,,^gtated . in^(, the^reply

¶20

Page 3 of4

¶21

sA No.94/2025

¶22

statement, referred^{to the documentsRled along with the reply} statement as due^{complianceof procedureprescribed under the} provisions of the Act and Rules^{thereunder, soughtfor dismissalof} the sA.

¶23

The^points for^{consideration are as follows : -}

¶24

i) Whether the applicant^{madeout anyvalid. ground} .to^set aside any of tite^{measuresof respondent bank under-the} Act in respect of^{the SA schedule propertY,as prayed for?}

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

Learned counsel for^{respondentbank reportedon 06'08'2025} that the impugned^{auction sale on 27.03'2025 did not materialize'} Hence I find no^{necessity to discusson issues pertainingto} compllance of^{Rules8(5), 8(6), 8(7)and 9(1)of the Rules of 2002'}

¶28

8, As^{per documentsfiled by the respondentalongwith reply} statement, the^{demand noticeand possessionnoticewere servedon} applicant. The^{possessionnotice dated O4'f7 '2024 was affixedon} secured asset^{and published in English and Telugu newspaperson} lO.l1.ZO24, The^{statementof account reflects the irregularity in} payment hence NPA^{classification cannot be called in question l find} no violation of^{Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of 2002' Being} secured creditor,^{the respondent bank is entitled under Sec 14 of the} Act, 2OO2 to approach^{learned CMM/DM for taking physical} possession. Such action^{is legal'}

¶29

In view^{of the above observations,lt is concluded that the} applicants^{have failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any} of the measures^{of the respondent bank under the-Act'2002 against}

'".n's'*

page 4 of4

SA N0.94/2025

the application schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Point No,( ii):

¶36

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

No order as to costs,

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶40

|lyp:d-,:o^{fiydictotion by thePS,cofie.te(t,signed ondprcnouncedby me in theopen court oh this} the 14'," doy ol octobeL 2025).

¶41

PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar 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

Surapaneni Ramesh versus Icici Bank Limited

Sharma Electrical Works and Others versus Union Bank of India

Smt R Ramadevi versus tata capitalfinancial services limited

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Abdul Moiz, S/O Jaleel Miya

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Tholla Saritha

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Thirumala Enterprises