Dismissed

Smt C Venkata Subbamma v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Jan 2026SA/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant filed a Securitization Application challenging auction notices under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found the application infructuous because a previous challenge to the possession notice was dismissed on merits and the applicant complied with a conditional order preventing the auction. The application was dismissed and interim stay vacated.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous; interim stay vacated; interlocutory applications closed.

Smt C Venkata Subbamma versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE^19TH DAY^{OF ]ANUARY,2026}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization^{ApplicationNo.233 OF 2025}

¶5

Smt. C. Venkata^Sunbbamma Wo^{late C. Obulaiah} Aged 61^{years,Occ:Household} Rlo 3123, BaPana^{Street, EguvaPeta} Sidhout, Siddavatam,^{CuddapahDist, A.P. 5t6237}

.......Applicant.

Versus

Canara Bank

Rep by Authorized^Officer Soecialized Asset^{Recovery & ManagementBranch} xvC Rrcade,^{3'd Floor, 13-1RC Road, Vani Nagar} Avilala, TiruPati-517501,^A.P.

¶10

... .Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for^the Appticants^{: Mr'T'SridharReddy}

¶12

Counsel for Respondent^{: Ms' Sangeeta Jaiswal}

¶13

-:g-U-LB:-

¶14

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} oftheSecuritizationandReconstructionofFinancialAssetsand Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to declare^{the notices includingauction sale notice dated} t2.05.2025 fixing^{auction on 30'05'2025,issued against the SA} schedule^{property under the Act as illegal, arbitraryand in violationof} provisions of the Act.

¶15

The case^{of the applicant, in brief, is that she availed} horticulture loan^{of Rs.40 lakhs from the respondent bank in 2016} and has been^{payingamounts regularly without any default'Without}

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

SA No.23312025

¶18

declaring the account as NPA, without serving demand notice, possession notice and without publishing the possession notice, the respondent directly issued sale notice to auction the schedule property. The respondent also failed to follow Sec.13(g) and Rules 8(6), 8(7), 9(1) of 2002. Hence the SA.

¶19

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that due to irregularity in repayment, the account became NpA. SA No.260/2022 filed by the applicant and others challenging the possession notice was dismissed, The OA No.177/2022 filed by the bank was allowed on L9.02.2024 directing the applicant and other defendants to pay an amount of Rs.67,49,950/- with future interest and costs. The impugned auction sale notice is the second notice hence 30 days notice is notice is not required. Respondent bank has duly followed Rules B(5), B(6), g(7), 9(1) of 2002. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Right of applicant advancing arguments was forfeited on 09.12.2025 as continuousry reported not ready. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank. perused the material brought on record.

¶21

During the course of arguments, rearned counser for respondent bank reiterated that the earlier sA challenging the possession notice was dismissed by the Tribunal, OA filed by the bank was allowed, respondent bank has followed due procedure contemplated in the Act and Rules thereunder, Accordingry rearned counser sought for dismissal of the SA with exemplary costs,

¶22

The points for consideration are as follows :

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

sA No.233/2025

¶25

i) Whether the applicant^{madeout any valid ground to} quash any of the measures of the respondent against^the SA schedule^propertyt as^{prayed for?}

¶26

ii) To what relief?

¶27

Point No.(i):

¶28

As per material records, SA^{No.260/2022 filed by the applicant} along with others challenging^{the possession notice/was dismissedon} merits. Hence the applicant cannot^{raise same issue in this} application. As reported by^{learned counselon 09.10.2025, auction} did not take^place as the^{applicant complied the conditionalorder} passed on 28.05.2025 in IA No.t459/2025.^{Under such} circumstances, SA is liable to^{be dismissed as infructuous.}

¶29

Point No.(ii):

¶30

In the result, the^{SecuritizationApplication is dismissedas} infructuous.

¶31

Consequently, the interim^{stay grantedon 28.08'2025shall} stand vacated and the^{Interlocutory Applications pending, if any,shall} stand closed.

¶32

11, No order as to costs.

¶33

Communicate a^{copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official^website.

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion by the^P5, corrected,^{signedandpronouncedby me in the opencourt on this} the 19th doy of^{Jonuory,2026).}

¶35

Ayt*^^^r // /' <'1'L&t

¶36

(RAMSSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt C Venkata Subbamma v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt C Venkata Subbamma v. Canara Bank

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

Narsing Rao Mekala versus Shriram Finance Limited

A Anupama versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sathishwar Reddy

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Thirupathi Reddy.

Canara Bank versus M/S, v K Marketing and Services

Panda Jaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited