Dismissed

D Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

DRT27 Jan 2026SA/111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenged notices for possession and e-auction by a bank. The Tribunal dismissed the application as infructuous due to lack of a materialized auction but directed the bank to issue a fresh sale notice.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; direction to Respondent to issue a fresh sale notice for auction following due procedure under SARFAESI Act and Rules.

D Ramesh versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No. 11 1/2C23

¶5

D. Ramesh, S/o Ilaiah, aged 57 years, Occ:business, R/o 4-l-298, Subhash Nagar, Reddy Colony, Opp.S.T. Joseph Church, Hanamkonda,Warangal.,

¶6

... Applicants

¶7

Versus Union Bank of India, Nayeem Nagar banch, Warangal Rep. by its Authorized offtcer .. Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Sn A. Vijag Kumar Counsel for 7"t Respondent : Sri P.Balaji Reserued on :19.12.2025 Pr^nounced on : 27 O1.2026 U'^,o.Ceo- to the website on :2f:^"r1'2O26

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is filed uls.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenging the Possession notice dt.15.12.2022 and also e Auction Sale Notice dt.16.O2.2O23 issued by the Respondent Bank for g of the schedule properties on 28.03.2023 and to declare void. ir16^{- 'q--.ffi ''S}

¶10

The ai#ments rdffie by th icant in brief are as follows: ? 7 ,rArt^?11t$ l

¶11

; : tr?

¶12

Applicant availed soD facility of Rs.200 lakhs under MSME loan/soDH and regularly payrng the instalments but due to loss in the business, the Applicant could not make some payments. The Applicant requested the bank for enhancement of the existing credit facilities But the Respondent bank without giving any reply, invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice and possession notice and the said notices are not served on the Applicant and possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule properties. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued the impugned e Auction sale Notice dt.76.o2.2o23 for conducting auction of the schedule property. The Respondent bank failed to follow Rule 8(6)(&)&g(1) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 as no separate 30 days sale notice was issued for giving an opportunity to redeem the secured asset. The Respondent bank has not obtained valuation report before fixing the reserve price against the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶13

.). The Respondent bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed credit facilities from the Bank by creating mortgage against the schedule properties. Thereafter, the Arpplicant committed default in repaying the loan dues. so, the Bank initiat'd proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice dt.10. LO.2022 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd.Post. Thereafter, the Bank issued possession notice dt.15.12.2022 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through

¶14

Regd.post and complied with Rule 8(1X2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules ,2OO2 and thereafter issued prior to sale notice and e Auction Sale notice in respect of the schedule properties by duly following the due procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 'elrnci er and there are no vioiations. Accordingly, Ld. '.. irnlss the SA. '! ?7 ,rIil^702$

¶15

Heard Ld. counsel for the Appticant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent.. Perused the material brought on record.

¶16

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶17

ii. whether the Applicant has established ana ualid. ground. for challenging the impugned e Auction sale Notice dt.16.02.2o23 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule properties?

¶18

iii. To what relief ?

¶19

Point No.(i):-

¶20

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective vet'sions as stated supra.

¶21

There i.s no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed credit iacilities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties and thereafter. committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶22

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Bank without serving demand, notice, possession notice and prior to sale notice, issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.16.O2.2O23 for conducting auction of the schedule properties without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶23

ffint contended that the Bank issued all the statutory eAtflitkt under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and

¶24

$u1es^{mffi thereu}

¶25

', 2 7 ,lAll 71;2$ * 'l? ., t j',

¶26

To substantiate their.contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after declaring the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.10. lO.2O22 and sent the same to the Applicant and others and it was served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by tJ:e bank. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice dt.15.12.2o22 in respect of the schedule properties and the said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication frled by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(21 ot Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.16.O2.2O23 for conducting auction of the schedule properties but however, the said auction was not rnateriaJized and thereafter the bank issued another e Auction Sale notice dt.25.01.2024 for conrlucting auction of the schedule properties and sent the said notice to the Applicant and published the said notice in two leading newspapers. However, cturing the course of arguments, Ld. counsei for the Respondent Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned e Auction Sale Noiice dt.25.07.2024, no auction was conducted by the Bank for want of bidders.

¶27

1 1. As the auction in respect of the schedule properties in pursuance of the impugned-Sale Notice dt.16.02 .2023 was not conducted, relief claimed by the Applicant in the SA becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the preserrt SA for adjudication and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned sale notice. As far as demald notice dt.10.10. d possession notice dt.15.12.2022 are concerned, the rupulousiy followed the procedure contemplated

¶28

.'Yi

¶29

s10n AESI Act,2OO2 and Rules, made thereunder

¶30

Ir,4",ri,rg aid d so, the said notices are legal and valid. ,t *'

¶31

:1 27 uw7ffi '-(l

¶32

Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present sA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Acl,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶33

Point No.(ii):-

¶34

t2. In the result, SA lll 123 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, correcled, sigrrccl cttrd pronounced bg nte in the open court on this the 27th dag of January, 2026).

¶37

sd/(G. GOPr C[rANDl PRESIDING OF'"TICER

¶38

."1.
27 unni/r.
-a
)

¶39

D Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Ramesh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paka Vasantha versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Shushma Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry

Idbi Bank Limited versus Shri. Rama Rao Battu

Canara Bank versus Mr. Banavath Tharun

State Bank of India versus M/S. Max Dental Innovations