Dismissed

Venkateswara Mini Decorticator v. Union Bank of India

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by the applicant challenging the respondent bank's recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. The bank established valid service of notices despite the applicant's default in repaying conditional installment orders.

What did the court decide?

Securitization application summarily dismissed and interlocutory applications stood closed.

Venkateswara Mini Decorticator versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION^{No. 283 OF 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Ve n kateswa ra^{M i n} i Deco rtica tor Rep by its Partner - M. Venkata RamanaPqa S/o Late Morimsetty^Papanna Aged about 68^years D.No. 1/514 and 515 Dharmavaram Road Kotha Cheruvu Town & Mandal Ana ntha^puram u District.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

Union Bank of India Rep by its Authorised Officer Kothacheruvu Branch Penukonda Taluq Sri Satya Sai District. .....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. D. Raghavulu.} Counsel for Respondent : Mr. P. Balaji.

¶11

-: (L-B-D-E-B:-

¶12

The Applicants filed the^present Securitization Application u/s. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002 assailing the action^of respondent to take^{physicalpossession} of the SA schedule^property in pursuance of Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 02.77.2022 pursuant to Warrant in Crl.M.P.177 of 2021 on thqfile of the learned /r)("* L:/

¶13

2of5

¶14

SA No.283/2022

¶15

Chief J udicial Mag istrate-cu m-Principal Assistant Sessions lud9e, Ananthapuram and all other proceedings u/s t3(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶16

The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in the SA, in brief, are that the respondent bank is trying to take the physical possession of the schedule property through the impugned notice despite specific requests to allow time to clear the dues keeping the financial crisis golng through by the applicant.^payment of Rs.20 takh, was adjusted to another account while proceeding under the SARFAESI Act in the subject loan account. Applicant filed Writ Petition No.19773 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati seeklng a direction to the respondent bank to consider applicant's request to grant four months time to settle the loan account. The W.P. No.19773 of 2021 was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2021. Applicant filed a Writ Petition No.3960 of 2022 challenging the Crl.M.P.No.777 of 2O2! on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cu m- Principa I Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapuram. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased order to pay the due amount in four equal instalments with the lst instalment to be paid within a period of four weeks from 76.02.2022. Applicant could only pay the 1st instalment of Rs.2O,OO,O00/- and was unable to pay subsequent instalments. When respondent bank proposed to conduct the auction of the property on 24.06.2022, applicant filed Writ Petition No.16045 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 23.06.2022 directing the applicant to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- within four weeks of the date of the order, Rs.30,00,000/- within four weeks thereafter and balance dues within six weeks thereafter, applicant could not comply the order. Despite keeping the respondent bank posted with ttle financial constraints of /Avi,.* ll/'lrl'N-

¶17

3of5

¶18

SA No.283/2022

¶19

the applicant, further measures for taking the physical possession of the property have been initiated. Despite knowing the applicant's situation and another loan account being regularised, the respondent bank is taking coercive steps to harass the applicant. Applicant is ready to regularise the loan account if some breathing time is granted. However, respondent bank is deliberately and intentional with an ulterior motive trying to dispose of the schedule property at a throw away price. The action of respondent bank is high handed, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice for the reason of non-compliance of provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules there under in serving demand notice and possession notices.

¶20

3' Respondent fired repry statement. The sum and substance of the reply statement of the respondent, is that the respondent bank denies of non-compriance of provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002 in issuing the statutory notices. As the applicant committed defaurt in repayment, the account has been crassified as NPA. As the applicant avoided service, respondent published the demand notice issued on 06.04.2021 in Eenadu Telugu Daily and Hans India English Daily on 29.04.202t. The respondent placed on record a photostat copy of possession notice dated 02.0g.2027, photograph of its affixture on the secured asset and publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily and Hans India, English Daily on 03.0g.2021. Thus, the respondent has not violated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules there under. Therefore, the allegations in the SA are baseless and contrary to the facts.

¶21

Both the counser prayed that orders may be passed based on records. perused the material placed on record.

¶22

5, Now the points that arise for determination are:_

¶23

4of5

¶24

SANo.283l2022'

¶25

(i) Whether the Applicants made out any^valid ground for quashing the measures initiated by the respondent u/s 14 and 13(4) ot^the Securitisation Act against the SA^schedule property?

¶26

( ii) To what relieQ

¶27

Point No.⁽ⁱ ):

¶28

The main^grievance of the applicant all^{through the SA is that} the respondent bank^{has not given sulficienttime to clearthedues.} In applicant's own admission^{WritPetitions have beenfiled from time} to time. However, applicant^{failed to comply the conditional orders} passed by the Hon'ble High Court^{in the WritPetitionsBeingcreditor} bank it is within^{the domain of the respondent bank whetherto grant} time for ctearance^{of dues or not. Interference of the Tribunalon this} aspect is unwarranted.

¶29

As regards^{the allegation of violationof Section 13(2)in servinq} demand notice^{dated 06.04'2021,respondentbank rebutted the} same by^{saying that since the applicant avoidedservice of demand} notice dated^{06.04.2021, substitute service was effected by way of} publication in^{Eenadu, Telugu Daily and Hans India'EnglishDailyon} Zg.O4.{OZf^{. Respondent bank placedon record Photostat copies of} each of^{the demandnotice dated 06 04 2021and the paper} publications^{vlde materialpapers pages 1 to 3 annexed to the reply} Statement.InthesameVein,respondentbankplacedPhotostat copies^{of possesslon notice dated O2'O8 '202L 'its affixture and} publicationintwonewspapersVidemater|alpapersatpages6to9 annexed^{to the reply statementThese documentshave not been} disputed^{by the applicant'Therefore' no viola-$onof Sections 13(2)} ow,"

¶30

5 or5

¶31

SANo283l2o22

¶32

:;:";^{ff] ;:'j::l*::J:"}

¶33

and¹³⁽⁴⁾ 1:j1",;i:::';:"lT:: SecuritY^{lntefesu r"''} the^applicants'

¶34

,..Aa^ that^the

¶35

B -11'5;;"',,'j:.:::Ttl.]P,L'"'n-':H,;s,v^{,n view o*he aborle;T:l:-;fuljllll.f,.-;ru;} sA^{is,iab'1e to be}

¶36

under^{tn" O'""isions of the Act' 2002'Acc} dismissed'

¶37

P-e!trEN,IS

¶38

Securitization^{Application fails and is hereby} 9.^{In the result' the} dismissed.

¶39

consequently,^{Interlocutory Applications pending,if any, shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs. Communicatea copy of this order} to the parties concerned and upload on official^Website.

¶40

(Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the l9'h day of February, 2026).

¶41

iu_esnuiAn rorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Venkateswara Mini Decorticator v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkateswara Mini Decorticator 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 M/s. Veldi Ramesh Fruits Merchants.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Bharat Iti Mr S Rajashekar Reddy versus Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedighar Nagaraju