Allowed

N Gopal Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT10 Aug 2026SA/216/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application challenging physical possession measures under the SARFAESI Act. The bank failed to file a reply or prove compliance with statutory mandates, warranting setting aside the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application (SA No. 216/2026) is allowed by setting aside the proceedings for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property.

N Gopal Reddy versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF AUGUST. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.216,/2026

¶5

Nagolu Gopal Reddy S/o, Late Nagolu Ramchandra Reddy Male, Age 59 years, R/o, H.No.5-80/1 Gorita Village, Timmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District 509 406

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorized Officer Union Bank of India, Thimmajipet Branch, Mahboobnagar Region Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State

¶9

Union Bank of India, Represented by its Chief Manager Timmajipet Branch, Mahboobnagar Region Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State ... Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Parties :

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Abhag Singh and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent--...., ..-. : Exparte
Reserued on .
."lt--ri....,^-r:j-::-:----;: .- ' : '. : 28.07.2026
Pronounced on
,tr 6 t"i.,.,".t ",t;.:..-. : 07.08.2026
uptoad in uebsite yt'{ $ ''9,1'0.08.2026
!i gi ,,;;}
e,i
u*
,iq ttii wr

¶12

(SA.No.21512025)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.1 7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Acl, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property through Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 5812025 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool under the SARFAESI AcL,2002.

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, Late Nagolu Ramchandramma Reddy was the prinicipal borrower and he died on 19.12.2023 and the Applicant and one Nagolu Govardhan Reddy are the legal heirs of the Late Nagolu Ramchandramma Reddy. While matter stood thus, the Respondent bank is trying to take physical possession of the schedule properties through the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.MP.No. 58/2025. lt is submitted that the Late Nagolu Ramchandramma Reddy had filed SA no. 28012023 before this Hon'ble Tribunal which was dismissed vide orders dated 01 .07.2023. lt is submitted that the Respondent bank failed to issue/serve fresh Demand notice to the legal heirs after the death of Late Nagolu Ramchandramma Reddy. The Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not published in two leading daily newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Enforcement Rules,2002. Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶16

--'
":"
J. Notice called absent and hence
the 28.07 2026
ic rr. 0/tu[2m ,(
Irlt
?
[S** a ..' .s-'j
\$'iL ..FvA/,/
\f$ff-W

¶17

(5A.No. 21612025)

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and^perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant has esfab/lshed any valid grounds for setting aside the measures taken by the Respondent Bank for taking^physical possesslon of the Schedule Property through Advocate Commissioner in Crl.MP.No. 58/2025?

¶21

To what relief?

¶22

¶23

Point No.fi)

¶24

The Applicant filed the^present SA for setting aside the^{proceedingsinitiated} by the Respondent Bank for taking^{physical possession} of^{the Schedule} Property through Advocate Commissioner in Crl.MP.No. 5812025. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI^{proceedingsagainstthe} schedule^property, failed to^justify their action by^{filing Replyand producing} necessary material documents to^prove that the Bank has strictly^{followed the} provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while^proceeding against the secured asset. The Respondents have^not evinced^{any interestin} contesting the matter even after^giving several opportunities^{and failedto file} their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of^the Applicant. ln the absence of any material evidence to show that^the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the^{mandated provisionsof} SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while enforcing^{the security interest over the} application schedule^property by the^{respondent bank,} I^{hold that the} Applicant has mada'.a-case for setting aside the^{proceedings initiated by the} Respondent possession of the Schedule Property throuoh Advocate in Crl.MP.No. 5812025 on the file of

¶25

(SA.No. 21512026)

¶26

Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶27

Point No.fii):-

¶28

ln the result, SA 216/2026 is allowed.

¶29

n Accordingly, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the proceedings for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 5812025 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI 4d,2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶30

I The lnterlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dbtated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed bg her, conected., signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the OVh daV of Augast, 2026).

¶33

sd/_ (G. GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

0 7 rij8 2m[

N Gopal Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Gopal Reddy 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Nutangi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Vani Educational Society

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Two Birds Travels

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mayuri Hospital

Ms Vijayalaxmi Enterprises versus Idfc First Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shiva Sai Textiles