Dismissed

Mr Kollan Raja Ram Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT2 Jun 2026SA/335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad dismissed SA 335/25 filed by Applicants challenging a Sale Notice issued by Union Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that statutory notices were duly served and the proceedings had merits, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

An Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging a Sale Notice dated 22.07.2025 is dismissed for lack of merits as the bank adhered to statutory procedures.

Mr Kollan Raja Ram Reddy versus Union Bank of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 2ND DAYOFJUNE, 2c.26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.335/2c25

¶5

Sri K.Rajaram Reddy, S/o Late K.Mutyam Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o Plot No.99, H.No. t6-tOZ lglgg, Susheela Nilayam, ICRISAT Colony, _Phase^{II, Beeramguda,Ameenpurpost,} Sanga Reddy, Medak District -SO2 O32.

¶6

Smt. K. Uma Rani, W/o Sri K.Rajaram Reddy,

¶7

Aged 39 years, Occ:house hold, R/o Plot No.99, H.No. t6-to7 lg/gg, Susheela Nilayam, ICRISAT Colony, _Phase^{II, Beeramguda,Ameenpuriost,} Sanga Reddy, Medak District -SOZ OSZ' ... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

l.Union Bank of India

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized officer Asset Recovery Branch, 249 l3RT, lst floor, Main Road, SR nagar, Hyderabad-SOO 038

¶11

Union Bank of India, Rep.by its Branch Manager

¶12

Calvary Temple Road, Miyaur, Respondents Counsel for th.e 0 ? Ki"shore Counsel for th.e "'iil,l '.5. Prasad Reserued on ,i:^{':-. ,-.:} $,,,,,,ru$ Pronounced on "i. Uploaded to the uebsite on

¶13

ORDER

¶14

¶15

This Application is frled by the Applicants u/s. 17 of t.l.e Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of securit5r Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the SaIe Notice dt.22.07.2025 issued by the Respondent Bank u/r g(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 ar':d to declare the same as nufl and void.

¶16

c The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶17

The Applicants availed loan from the 2-d Respondent for construction of house against the mortgage of schedule propert5r and the Respondents have not issued any notice regarding the rate of interest or classification of the loan account as NpA. Earlier, the Applicants also liled SA glgl23 on the lile of Hon'ble DRT{I, Hyderabad challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physicar possession of the secured asset pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, sangareddy and also the E sale Notice dt.16.08.2023 and the Appricants have complied with the interim orders. So, the said SA was dismissed by the Hon,ble DRT_II, Hyderabad as the said measures were not materialized. The Respondents herein have supressed the fact of local jurisdiction of the Recovery oflicer, DRT-II, Hyderabad where the property is situated, which is within the local jurisdiction of this Hon,ble DRT-I, Hyderabad since the property is situated at Beeramguda, Ameenpur village, patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. Hence the SA.

¶18

J. The Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse alregations made in the SA and t the Applicants availed loan of Rs.24,06,166/_ for con house by creating mortgage against the rty. Applicants have defaulted in repayment of1 es n and¹ so, rpil ,tt',g the loan r' 't t was classilied as NpA as qu per t-vr thL, e Cuid .r fi# aii#.?iE$ RBI drrd tHti" Bank fited O.A.32S/2L before Hon,ble DRT_II,

¶19

q.r-rd the said O&Sas allowed vide order dt.OS.O 3.2024 and the

¶20

said proceedings^prevail over the^{presentSARFAESIproceedingsinitiated} by the Respondents. Earlier, the Applicants liled SA 378/23 and^they complied with the interim order dt.25.09.2023^passed by^{HonbleDRT-II,} Hyderabad and the said SA was dismissed by holding that the Bank has followed the due process of law. The Respondent has duly followed the procedure in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. Thereafter, the bank issued Pre-sale notice u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2OO2 dt.22.O7.2O25 and also issued e Auction sale notice dt.O4.O9.2O25. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the impugned sale notice dt.22.O7 .2025. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

Heard [d. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶22

Now the points tllat arise for consideration are

¶23

uhether the Applicants haue establisled anA ualid ground for challenging tle impugned Sale Notice dt.22.07.2025 issued bg the Respondents against the schedule propertg?

¶24

lu. To uhat relief?

¶25

Point .I\Io.(i):-

¶26

During the co ents, Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel their respective versions as stated supra. ifP *

¶27

' -!0 2 Jr.Il 2028

¶28

There dispute that Applicants availed housing loan from mortgage against the schedule

¶29

property in security to the repayment of the said loan and thereafter, they committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan account of the Applicants as NPA, the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.22.07 .2025 for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r and challenging the same, the Applicants filed the present SA.

¶30

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.22.O7 .2025 without issuing any prior notices and without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶31

¶32

But the Respondents contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. It is also contended that the Applicants earlier filed SA 378123 on the file of Hon'ble DRT-lt, Hyderabad and the said SA was dismissed.

¶33

¶34

To substantiate their contention, Respondent Bank liled material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the documents filed by the Respondents, it is clear that the Applicants earlier Iiled SA 378/23 on the file of DRT-II, Hyderabad challenging the Auction Sale Notice dt.16.O8.2O23 and also the proceedings initiated by the bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said SA was dismissed by the Ld. DRT-II, Hyderabad by holding that the Bank has issued demand notice and possession notice by duly following the procedure and in view of the same, the Applicants cannot re-agitate the non-receipt o and possession notice in the present SA as the iples of Res-judicata. After dismissal of the SA ed the impugned Pre-sale Notice ty to the Applicants to redeem the the said notice was served

¶35

on the Applicants and the Applicants also liled copy^{of the said notice} along with the SA filed by them. Accordingly, Respondents^{have duly} followed the procedure in issuing the impugned Sale notice dt.22.O7 .2025 u/r 8(6)of Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 20O2.Thereafter, the} Respondents also issued Sale Notice dt.04.09.025 for conducting auction of the schedule property, however, the Applicants have not challenged the same in the present SA.

¶36

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the impugned Pre-Sale Notice dt.22.O7.2O25 issued by the Respondents against the schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondents and against the Applicants.

¶37

Point No.(ii)t

¶38

In the result, SA 335/25 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶39

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

t4. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

bg her, conected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open
June, 2026).
* *
02 rn7fi
sd/-
o
I , (G. GOPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
5

Mr Kollan Raja Ram Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Kollan Raja Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mr. Pathan Mahaboob Subhani

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India

J Surender versus Union Bank of India

Panyala Pushpalatha and Another versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

J Mukund versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bellatrix Wagon Traders