Dismissed

Kalingiri Saigirish Kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRT12 Feb 2026SA/312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal Dubai refused to set aside pre-sale and possession notices issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank strictly complied with statutory notices and RBI guidelines, while the applicant failed to prove non-compliance or exhaustion of internal grievances.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed. Measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the Securitisation Act not set aside.

Kalingiri Saigirish Kumar versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ ]I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY,²⁰²⁶

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 312 OF²⁰²⁵

¶5

Kalingiri Sai Girish Kumar S/o. Sri.^M urali Krishna Aged: 30 years, Occ: Business H. No.10-269/1- 1, Indira Nagar Koikuntia Village and Mandal Nandyal District-518134

¶6

Kalingiri Lakshmi, Wo. K. Murali Krishna, Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife H. No.10-269/ 1- 1, Indra Nagar, Koikuntla, Opp. APSRTC Bus Stand, Kurnool-518134 ..^{...Applicants.}

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch 1st floor, S.V. Campus Branch, Behind S.V. university Admin Building S.V.University,Tirupathi,AndhraPradesh^{.....Respondent}

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants :^{Mr. V. PramodKumar}

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Bank :^{Mr. V. Sethu MadhavaRao}

¶11

-:o_R_D-E-B:-

¶12

The present Securitization^{Application is filed by the Applicants} u/s.77 ot the Securitisation and^{Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set aside all the^measures of^{the respondent bank under} section 13(2) & 13(a) of the Act,^{including pre-sale noticedated} 15.07.2025 in respect of SA Schedule^{Proper![as null and void,} OYa

¶13

Page 2 of5

¶14

sA No. 312/2025

¶15

illegal and arbitrary against Rule 8(1)^{of the SecurityInterest} (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter for short).

¶16

The averments of the application, briefly, are that^{the Appllcant} availed overdraft facility of Rs. 10 lakhs in the^{years2015-2016,} which was subsequently enhanced to^{Rs.75 Lakhs in 2019, secured} by mortgage of the Schedule^{Property. Due} to^{the COVID-19} pandemic, the Applicant suffered substantial business^losses, rendering compliance with the repayment schedule^{unfeasible.The} Applicant avers that the Respondent^Bank violated^{RBI rulesand} guidelines by charging exorbitant interest rates and subjecting the Applicant to physical and mental harassment. To substantiate^these contentions, reliance is^placed on the^judgment of the^{Delhi High} Court in .Anant Raj Limited v.^{Yes Bank} lfd.,^{whereinit was held that} moratorium relief under RBI circulars is applicable even to^pre- exlsting defaults as on 01.03.2020. Similarly,^{in Kamal Kumar Kalia} v. tJnion of India & Ors.^(Supreme Court of India), it was directed that banks must adhere to RBI^guidelines dated 27.03.2020 in^letter and spirit. Through the aforesaid cltations,^{the Applicant alleges non-} compliance by the Respondent Bank with RBI'S Master Guidelines issued during the COVID-19^pandemic. Apprehending irreparable hardship upon dispossesslon from the Schedule Property, the Applicant prays for stay of all enforcement^proceedings including demand notice and^possesslon notice, and setting aside the impugned pre-sale notice as violative of statutory rights.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with list of documents. The Respondent Bank denies the averments ln the Securitization Application and asserts strict compliance with RBI circulars to the letter and spirit. The Applicant's proprietary concern avaired cash credit timits assresatine "trt Zw;\tpplicant No.2

¶18

Page 3 of 5

¶19

SA No.31212025

¶20

as co-borrower/guarantor. Despite repeated^{reminders,the} Applicants breached sanctioned limits and^{repaymentterms, resulting} in NPA classification on 13.09.2024. Consequently a^demandnotice dated 17.09.2024 was issued under Section^{13(2) of the Act and duly} served by registered^post. Upon expiry of the^{statutoryperiod,} possession notice dated 03.L2.2024 was issued under Section¹³⁽⁴⁾ of the Act, affixed on the Schedule^{Property,and published} in Eenadu and Financial Express dailies. With the^{Applicantsfailing to} come forward for settlement, the Respondent^{Bank invokedSection} 14 of the Act and approached the Hon'ble^{Chief ludicialMagistrate} Court vide filing Crl.M.P.No.95/2024,^{pursuantto which an Advocate} Commissioner was appointed, who issued^{vacate notice dated} 03.05.2025. The Respondent Bank obtained^{valuationreport prior to} issuance of^pre-sale notice. It is further^{submitted that the Applicant} failed to comply with a conditional order of this^{Tribunal,disentitling} consideration of the SA on merits.^{Reliance is placedon the Supreme} Court^judgmenl in M/s. Prestige^Lights Ltd.^{v. State Bankof Indiain} support thereof. The respondent bank^{affirms due compliance of the} provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder and sought for^dismissal of SA.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant^{reportedorder maybe passed} on record. Heard the arguments of^{the learned counsel for the} respondent bank. Perused the^{material brought on record.}

¶22

The points for consideration are as^{follows :} -

¶23

i) Whether the applicant^made out^{any valid ground to} quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedute^property as^prayed r"4W"

ii) To what relief?

Page 4 of 5

SA No.31212025

Point No.(i l:

The admitted facts are that the Applicants availed credit facility from the Respondent Bank against mortgage of the Schedule Property as security, and failed to adhere to the repayment schedule. Hence, the action initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI^proceedings cannot be termed as lllegal or irregular, as contended by the Applicant. Apart from bald assertions in the Securitization Application regarding non-compliance with RBI rules and^guidelines, the Applicant has failed to establish that they had taken up the matter of non-compliance of RBI Circulars either with the higher-ups of the Respondent Bank or with the Authorities of the RBI under the mechanism set up for grievances. Hence such averment without any basis cannot be accepted.

¶30

fhe Respondent Bank has filed Photostat copies of postal receipts and track reports evidencing due service of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Acl, 2002 upon the Applicant. The Bank has fudher placed on record proof of dispatch of possession notice under Section 13( ) of the Act, track reports with postal acknowledgements, newspaper publications in English and Telugu dailies, and photographs confirming affixture of possession notice on the schedule property. Photocopies of postal receipts and track reports evidencing due service of pre-sale notice under Rule 8(6) of Rules, 2002 have also been filed.

¶31

In view of sufflcient proof material made available by the respondent bank, it is concluded that the applicants failed to establish violation of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act or Rutes 3, 8(1), B(2) & 8(6) of the Rules, 2002. The Applicant having failed to establish any valid grounds for interference, the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the Securitization Act cannot be set

¶32

Page 5 of 5

¶33

SA No.31212025

¶34

aside. The^present Securitization Application accordingly deserves dismissal.

¶35

Point No.(ii):

¶36