The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash a possession notice and physical possession action taken by Union Bank of India under the SA&RE Act, 2002, finding the bank had complied with statutory and rule-based procedural requirements despite prior withdrawal of proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IIAT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OFJANUARY,2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE, B.Com, L'LB.(Hons.),M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitisation Application No.343OF 2024
WoMr.B. Surender ReddY Aged 41years, Flat No,303 Balaji Heights, Road No.4 Satyanarayana ColonY,Nagaram Ranga Reddy District 500 038
Aged 52years, Flat No.303 Balaji Heights, Road No.4 Satyanarayana ColonY,Nagaram Ranga Reddy District 500 038
.....Applicants.
Versus
Rep by its Chief Manager Plot No.29, Near EC NagarPhaseII IDA CherlaPallY,RR District Hyderabad 500 051
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Abhay Singh
\
Counsel for the Respondent:Mr. Ms' Sangeeta laiswal
-:9-M-B:-
SA No.343/2024
Page 2 of 5
hereinafter for short) to set aside all themeasuresinitiated by the respondents under Sec.13(a) of the Act, 2002 includingtaking physical possession of the applicant schedule propertypursuant to orders dated 26.06.2024 appointing advocate commissionerin Crl.MP No.26B of 2024.
sA No. 343/2024
Page 3 of 5
issued demand notice dated11.03.2024and the same was received by applicants. As nopayment was made, possessionnotice was issued on 01.06.2024whichwasalso received by the applicants,and the possession noticewas published in 'Business Standard'and'Mana Telangana' on 05.06'2024besldes affixlng on secured asset' Thereafter, respondentbank filed sec.14 application beforelearned cMM who appointedadvocate commissionervide warrantin crl.MP No.265 of 2024. Thebenefit announced by theCentral Government/RBIwas applicable toaccounts standard as on 01.03.2020 whereasaccount ofapplicants became NPA on 03.02.2020 itselfhence not eligible for the scheme benefit' Respondent bankhas duly followeddue procedure under the Act and Rules thereunderhenceSA is liable to be dismissed'
4.Heardlearnedcounselfortheapplicantaswellaslearned counsel for the respondentbank.Perused the material records brought on record.
Page 4 of 5
sA No. 343/2024
prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court. The rejection of proposal to dispose of asset was intimated to the applicants. In the fresh proceedings, the demand notice and possession notice were duly served, possession notice was published in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers within prescribed time and got affixed on the secured asset. Thereafter bank proceeded under Sec.14 of the Act to take physical possession of secured asset, While relying on documents annexed to the reply statement, learned counsel submitted that the respondent bank has duly followed the procedure of law and accordingly sought for dismissal of the SA with exemplary costs.
ii) To what relief?
Point No.(i):
L Learned counsel for respondent bank, by providing dates of deposit of conditional amount as directed by the Hon,ble High Court, affirms that applicant failed to comply the order within time and hence respondent bank proceeded further with securitization measures. These dates are not disputed by the applicant. Fresh measures have been taken up after withdrawal of earlier notices as recorded in SA No.95/2022 and reported in this matter.
9, As per material documents placed on record by the respondent bank, the fresh demand notice dated 11.03.2024 was sent by registered post to the applicants receipt of which acknowledged vide postal track reports as at pages 5 to B. pol"w;#edated
sA No. 343/2024
Page 5 of 5
0t.06.2024 was also sent byregistered post, received by the applicants, affixed onsecured asset and published in English and Telugu newspapers on 05.06.2024vide postal track reports, copies of paper clippings andphotographs, as atpages 11 to 18 annexedto reply statement. Inview ofthe sufficient proof, I find no violation of theprovisions of Rules3, 8(1)and B(2) of the Rules, 2002'
10, It iS reportedby learned counsel for bank that the Warrantdate in Crl.MP No.303/2024expired. With this, the SA has become infructuous as far asSec.14 proceedingsare concerned'However, being secured creditorrespondent bank is entitled under sec.14 of the Act to takephysical possessionof the secured asset'
Point No.(ii):
L2.Intheresult,thesecuritizationApplicationfailsandishereby dismissed.
t4, Communicatea copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand upload in the officialwebsite.
(Typed to my dictotion by theP5, corrected,signedond pronouncedby me in theopen court on thisthe 7g'h dqy of Jonuory,2026).
(q1!Y
ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the possession notice dated 01.06.2024 issued under section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act and action to take physical possession of the s
Whether the bank followed due procedure under Rules 3, 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 before taking possession.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Suneetha
Mr. Bollapu Surender Reddy
Union Bank of India
Rameshwarkothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
