Dismissed

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India

DRT9 Mar 2026SA/19/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application filed by a loan applicant challenging a possession notice dated 22.12.2021 issued by the bank. The tribunal held that the applicant based their challenge on a draft possession notice which was not issued. Consequently, there was no cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Application SA No.19 of 2022 dismissed as devoid of merits; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL * I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE gTH DAYOFMARCH, 2c.26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.19,/2022

¶5

M/s Fine Green Constructions p.Ltd., Regd. Office at Flat No. 1005, 10m floor, Minerva Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-29 & also ai: 4-.6611, Gowtham Nagar, Industrial Estae, Eluru, West Godavari District Rep.by is Director A.G.N.V.S.A.Ramachandra Rao

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

l.Union Bank of India, Regional Oflice:Koti, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief General Manager.

¶9

Union Bank of India,

¶10

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

¶11

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer,

¶12

Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Sri C. Raglru Counselfor the Respondents : Si V. Sethu Madhaua Roo

¶15

Reserued on :21.01.2026 Pronounced on : O9.O3.2026 Uploaded on :09.03.2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

¶18

This Application is filed u/ and Reconstruction of Financial Assets r a{d Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, of the Respondents in issuing

¶19

the impugned Possession Notice dt.22.1 2.2o2L in respect of the schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void.

¶20

The averments made in the Application in brief are as follows:

¶21

The Applicant company availed term loan from the Respondent No.2 for the purpose of developing commerciar complex beronging to Rail Land Development Authority at salem, Tamilnadu. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the sARFAESI Act,2002 on 18.07.2o2o by classifying the loan account as NpA on 07.10.2o17. In response to the said notice, the Applicant issued reply n otice dt.24.o7.2o2o and.to the said reply, the 2na Respondent issued their repry and the Appricant arso issued another notice dt.o3.og.2o2o. The Applicant is a MSME unit and the loan account ought to have been examined in the light of the provisions of MSME Ac, 2006. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice 22'12'202r to three units i.e. the Appricant herein, M/s Fine Aromas P.Ltd. and M/s Ambica Family Holdings which is illegai. Hence the SA.

¶22

3' Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse alregations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant availed Term loan of Rs.2.92 crores from the Respondent Bank whereas Mr.Arapati vajara Ambica Prasad, Mr.perla V.V.p. Ikishna Rao, Mr.Alapati N.V.S.M. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr'Alapati Rama Anjaneyulu offered the schedule properties as securit5r for repayment of the loan availed by the Appricant and the creation of mortgage has been confirmed by them vide memorandum of deposit of title deed dt.29.o1.202r. Thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Bank declared the loan accounts as NPA on 07.1O.2O1.7,as per the guidelines of RBI. The Responded Bank T*::.i:rugfrugf;N,.r..or.2o2o^{and the said noticewas received by} the Ap"plicanffind ;Bd[i."nt sent objections vide notice dt..24.ol.2o2o ,andthen"""ts".;ff .;;".;;;;;;;;;;;";,1r;ii:iiii iwhereir0 &.1'l$rffir..fiJ[,u,.a that the guidelines issued by RBr on ,. . 4il ,'-r,r:@. +- ' i\i; 2-:4 :

¶23

27'o3.2o2o &' 17.04.2020 are not applicabre to the Applicant as the account was classified as NpA on OZ.lO.2Ol7. However, the Respondent Bank has not issued the alleged possession notice dt.22.1 2.2o2r referred in the writ petition No.tZ8/22 or in the present SA and so, the present SA is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶24

Heard Ld. counser for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶25

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶26

i. tuhether the Applicant has established ang ualid ground s for challenging tte impugned possession Notice dt.22.12.2021 issued. bg the Respondents against the schedule properties?

¶27

ii. To wtnt relief?

¶28

Point .l\Io.(i):-

¶29

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

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank and Mr.Alapati Vajara Ambica Prasad, Perla V.V.p. Krishna Rao, Alapati N.V.S.M. Rqieshwar Rao, Alapati offered the schedule properties as securit5r fi loan availed by the Applicant. Subsequently, the efault in repayment of loan dues and so, the bank loan adcor\ ts as NPA. rk \l

¶31

?lfli

¶32

.6S: li F, i, .{$yi r\Y'./r'' 't, .-lz-

¶33

¶34

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondents failed to follow the procedure contemprated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶35

But the Respondent Bank contended that the Bank issued demand notice and also issued reply to the objections raised by ttre Applicant in response to the said demand notice by duly following the procedure and there are no violations.

¶36

The Applicant is specificaily chalenging the impugned possession notice dt.22.r2.2o2r arleged to be issued by the Respondent Bank u/s r3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the schedule properties. The Bank contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant, the Respondent bank classified the loan account of the Applicant as NpA and issued demand notice dt.rg.or.2o2o and the said notice was admittedry received by the Applicant and the Applicant also sent their objections vide letter dt.24.o7.2o2o and the bank duly replied to the said objections vide their letter dt. 10.08.2020 and thereby complied with section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter, the Appricant filed writ petition No.l78l22 on the file of Honrrre High court of Telangana chaflenging the impugned Possession Notice dt.22. r 2.2o2r and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High court giving ribert5r to the Applicant to file application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and directed the Respondent Bank not to take any coercive steps. Thereafter, the Applicant fi1ed the present SA challenging the impugned possession notice d,t.22.12.2o2 L. However, it is categorically stated by the Respondent bank that the Bank has not issued the alleged possession notice dt.22.r2.2o2L re 1l petition No.l7a/22 or in the present SA and the Ar got the draft possession notice. On the basis of tA. saia ion notice, the Applicant 1iled writ petition 0 I I'IAR 2m ' i.a,lrq,

¶37

and the present sA and so, there is no cause of action arise in the SA and as such, the SA is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶38

so in the circumstances, I hold that the Applicant is not entitred to claim any relief in this SA basing on a draft possession notice. So this point is answered in favour of Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶39

Polnt No.(tl)r

¶40

1 1 ' In the result, sA 19 12022 is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribe-d by l:?,_ ?necteit, signed and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the th dag of Marcta 2026)

¶43

sd/_ (c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

r D'."ir-r, HYDERAE/"n.

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 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

Vonturu Srinivasa Rao versus Hdfc Bank

Kamepalli Padmavathi versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Illuri

State Bank of India versus M/S. a K Metal Mart

Canara Bank versus M/S. Mahender Powerlooms Industry

Nanditha Granites Rep by Tallam Sridevi versus Canara Bank