Dismissed

Vemula Ravi Kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/386/2024

Download

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

A compact analysis

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.

Vemula Ravi Kumar versus Union Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | DRT (2026)

¶47

the OTS as a matter of right. The issue of OTS^{is outsidethe scopeand} enquiry of the SA u/s 17(3) ofthe SARFAESI Act,^{2002. Further,as far as} possession notices dt.03.05.2018 & 04.05.2018 are concerned, challenging the said notices in the^present SA is barred^{by limitation.} After cancelling the OTS, the Bank issued various^{sale noticesfor} conducting auction of the schedule^properties and^the Applicants/ borrowers/ 3'd parties liled SAs challenging the^proceedings initiated by the Bank for recovery of the outstanding dues^{before this} Tribunal and Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad,^{however, the parties} have not complied with the conditional interim^{orders passedby the} Tribunals. Thereafter, the bank issued fresh Sale Notice^{dt.17.O9.2024} and challenging the said notice, the Applicants^{filed the presentSA. In} the present SA also, the Applicants obtained conditional^stayorder wherein the Respondent bank is directed to^{go ahead with the auction} but not to conhrm the same in favour of the highest bidder^{pursuant to} the sale notice dt. 17.09.2024 subject to deposit of Rs. 1.60 crores,^{but the} Applicants have not complied with the said order within the stipulated time. However, auction as^proposed on O9.1O.2O24^{pursuant to the} impugned Sale Notice dt.17.O9.2O24 was not materialized for want^of bidders. So, there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise^{of the said} Sale Notice dt.17.O9.2024 issued by the Bank since the relief claimed^by the Applicants becomes infructuous and nothing survives in^{the present} SA for adjudication. Thereafter, when the Applicants failed to^complywith the said interim order, the Bank proceeded further and issued^{fresh 3O} days Sale Notice dt. I8.1O.2O24 and after expiry of 30 days, the bank issued Auction Sale Notice dt.O5.12.2024 fixing the date of auction^on 27.12.2024. The said sale notice was sent to the Applicants^{through Regd.} .e^{same waspublished in two daily newspapers and the said} _. affixed on the schedule properties, however, the said to be held on 27.12.2024 was not materialized for The Applicants are dragging the proceedings initiated 0*3,St t Bank to recover the huge outstanding dues on one

Vemula Ravi Kumar v. Union Bank of India

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Vemula Ravi Kumar v. Union Bank of India

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry