Allowed

V Prameela and v. Rajasekhar v Punjab National Bank

DRT8 Jan 2026SA/104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 17 of S&RT Act, 2002, setting aside the respondent bank's possession notice. The Tribunal held the bank failed to comply with Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules regarding service and affixture of notices, despite admitting irregularities in NPA classification and notice issuance.

What did the court decide?

The possession notice dated 27.12.2022 is set aside in respect of the schedule property.

V Prameela and v Rajasekhar versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 8THDAY OF ]ANUARY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH^{RAIYESHWARKOTHE,B com' L LB (Hons )' M A'}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization^{ApplicationNo'104OF 2023}

¶6

V. Prameela,^{W/o Late PrabhakarRao} Aged: 70 Years,^{Occ: House Wife} Gender:^{Female, House No -16} Door No -40-9-16,^{SBI Officerscolony,} Ranga Nagar,^VijaYawada, Krishna Dist,^{Pin-500 084.}

¶7

Present address:

¶8

103,A Block,^{Fortune NestApartments} Near Jain Public^{School, MasjidBanda} Konda^pur Main^{Road, Hyderabad-500084}

¶9

Vemuri^{Raja Sekhar, S/o Late PrabhakarRao,} Aqed: 51^{years, Occ: Private Service,Gender:Male,} Rfo. 103,A Block,^{Fortune Nest Apartments} Near Jain Public^{School, lvlasjidBanda} Kondapur lYain^{Road, Hyderabad-500084,}

¶10

Represented^{by GPA Holder: Vuppala Sreedhar} S/o GoPala^{Krishna,Aged:51} Years, R/o Gandhi bomma^{centre,Pyaparu,Guntur}

¶11

. ......APPlicants.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Punja b National^Bank, Represented by^{its Authorised officer,} Stressed Assets^{TargettedResolution ActionDivision,} Zonal SASTRA, Greenland, Ameerpet, HYderabad^{- 500016.}

¶14

N'IARK INFRASTRUCTURE^{Pvt Ltd} Represented bY^{14r. V. Ravl Kiran,} S/o Late Vemuri^{PrabhakarRao,} Aged: 50 Years, Occ:^Business, Gender: Male, Satya^Enclave R/o. Plot No 25, Srila^ParkPride, lvletro Water Works^Road, Hydernagar, KukatPallY ....Respondents Hyderabad - s00082. u /^ X*tu

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

sA No.104/2023

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant

¶18

Mr. T, Vijay Kumar

¶19

Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶20

Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote

¶21

-:ORDER:-

¶22

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside the measures initiated by the respondent bank against the application schedule property pursuant to sale notice dated 08.02.2023.

¶23

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they stood as guarantors for the loan availed by 2nd respondent in the year 2002. The 2'd respondent has been operating the account satisfactorily. However on 13.06.2022 respondent bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) without following the RBI circular dated 01.01.2019 and 07.02.2018 while classifying the account as NPA. Again on 72.07.2022 the respondent bank issued demand notice by declaring the account as NPA on 30.06.2022. Without considering the request for compromise, respondent bank issued possession notice under Section 13( ) of the Act on 27.t2.2022 but the same was not served on applicants, not published and affixed on the schedule property. The respondent bank also issued sale notice dated 08.02.2023 without following Sections 13(B), Rules B(5) 8(6) B(7) of the security interest ("Enforcement'I Rules, 2002^("Rules" hereinafter). Hence this SA. kr*

kr*

Page 3 of4

5A No.104/2023

The^{respondent bank filed reply statement' The submissions'} inter alia, are that^{the account was declared as NPA due to irregular} payments on 30.06.2022.^{RBI circulars are not applicable to the} applicants'^{case. There was no proposal of OTS submittedby the} applicants.^{The possession notlce was published in news Papers on} .|-he 29,f2.2022,^{served on the applicants and otherson 30 'L2'2022'} respondent bank^{has strictlyfollowed the due procedureas} contemplated^{in the Act and Rules thereunderwhile putting the} property for sale. The^{SA is liableto be dismissed'}

¶28

Heard learned^{counselfor the applicant respondent bank and} learned counsel^{for the respondent bank'Perusedthe material placed} on record.

¶29

During the course^{of arguments,learned counselfor the} applicant as well^{as for respondentbank reiteratedtheir respective} version as in the^{application and reptystatement Learned counsel for} respondent bank stated^{that auctiondated 14'03'2023 did not} materialize.

¶30

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

¶31

i) Whether the applicants^{made out anyvalid groundto} quash the measures of the respondent^{againstthe sA} schedule ProPertY?

¶32

ii) To what relieft

¶33

Point No.(i):

¶34

Admittedly, the applicants^{stoodas guarantors for theloan} availed by the 2nd^{respondent. Creationof mortgage and defaultin} payment are not in dispute hence,^NPA canno!,.Pe^{a matter of} question, !ft|ru

!ft|ru

Page 4 of 4

SA No.104/2023

B. It appears, the impugned sale notice of 14.03.2023 did not take place hence SA became infructuous as far as sale is concerned.

¶39

A perusal of the documents annexed to the reply statement filed by the respondent bank would disclose that though publication was carried out in respect of demand notice dated 26.07.2022 on t3.08.2022, the respondent bank has not filed the proof of sending the demand notice the borrower/guarantors/mortgagers. Further, despite specific contention by the applicants, respondent bank has not filed proof of affixture of Section 13(4) possession notice on the secured assets as required under Rule 8(1) of the Rules 2002. Under such circumstances, it is concluded that the respondent bank failed to follow Rule B(1) of the Rules, 2002. Accordingly, SA deserves to be allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 27.t2.2022.

¶40

Point No.(ii):

¶41

In the result, the Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the^possession notice dated 27.L2.2022 in respect of the SA schedule property.

¶42

However, this order does not^preclude the respondent bank from initiating measures against the secured asset in accordance with the law.

¶43

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶44

':l:ii,":3;;:;tr:f^{;i::1",;';:;'*'c'ied'sisnedondpro'""""'l;iw;,}

¶45

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

V Prameela and v. Rajasekhar v Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Prameela and v. Rajasekhar v Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Munipratap Gedi

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hosiery World

Bank of India versus Sri Nampalli Teja Prasanna Rajesh

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Şree Balaji Ready Mix Concrete

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai

Idbi Bank versus Chendil Kumar