Dismissed

S Venkateswarlu v. Union Bank of India

DRT10 Aug 2026SA/396/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank's possession and sale notices under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank complied with statutory provisions and rules regarding notice issuance and publication, and found no infraction in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interim stay vacated; interlocutory applications closed.

S Venkateswarlu versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 396 OF 2025

¶5

Mr. S. Venkateswarlu,

¶6

S/o. Late Sri S.V. Subba Rao Aged 53 years, occupation business, R/o. Flat No. 104, First floor, Yashoda Nilayam, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

¶7

............Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union Bank of India, Krishna Nagar Branch Plot No. 145, KamalaPuri ColonY, Krishnanagar, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁷³ Represented by its Authorized^officer

¶10

.....ResPondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶12

: Mr. M. R. B. Manikandan : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶13

-:ORDER:-

¶14

The^present Securitization^{Application is filed by the Applicant} u/s.17 of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enfoicement C: of^{SecurityInterest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) assailing^{possession notice dated 08.08.2025 and sale notice} dated 03.09.2025, in^{respectof the SA Schedule Properties.}

¶15

The averments of^{the application, in brief, are that the applicant} had availed a home^loan of^{Rs.2O,OO,OOO/-from the respondent bank} in the year 2Ot4 by mortgaging^{the SA schedule propertiesas} security. It is contended that^{the applicantltad been regular in}

(-.,7)y-o1u

Page 2 of 5

SA No.396/2025

repayment of the loan; however, due to serious kidney-related^illness and the resultant financial hardship, he defaulted in^payment of^{a few} EMIs. Consequently, the respondent bank^proceeded to initiate measures under the SARFAESI Act by issuing the Possession Notice dated 08.08.2025 and the Sale Notice dated 03.09.2025 without affording the applicant an opportunity to regularise the account. The applicant further alleges that the respondent bank failed to issue the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also failed to affix the Possession Notice on the secured asset and publish the same in English and vernacular newspapers as mandated under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules" for short). On these grounds, the applicant seeks to set aside the impugned possession notice, sale notice and all consequential measures initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act.

¶20

The Respondent Bank filed its reply statement along with supporting documents. The respondent bank, in its reply statement, denies the averments made in the SA and contends that the same is devoid of merit and not maintainable in law. It is submitted that the applicant had availed a home loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in the year 20t4 by creating an equitable mortgage over the SA schedule properties and, upon committing persistent defaults in repayment, the loan account was classified as a NPA on 18.01.2025 in accordance with the RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the respondent issued a Demand Notice dated 05.02.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding payment of the outstanding dues. As the applicant evaded service of the notice, the same was published in two leading newspapers in compliance with Rule 3 of the Rules, 2002. Upon failure of the applicant to discharge the liability within the statutory period, the respondent issued the possession Notice dated 08.08.2025 under Section 13(4) ot ,n. orffip.^o.was personalty l./^- to.u^- ( _,/

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

SA No.396/2025

¶23

served upon the applicant, affixed on the secured asset,^and published in two leading newspapers in compliance with^{Rules 8(1)} and 8(2) of the Rules. It is further^{submitted that the secured asset} was valued by an approved valuer and,^{thereafter,a Sale Notice} dated 03.09.2025 under^Rules 8(6)^{and 9(1) of the Ruleswasissued,} granting the mandatory thirty days' time before the^{proposedsale,} and the same was duly^{served and published in accordancewith law.} Having complied mandatory^{provision of the Act and Rules} thereunder, the respondent^{prays for dismissal of the SA with} exemplary costs.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant^{reported that orders may be} passed based on records. Heard^{learned counsel for the respondent} bank. Perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶25

Learned counsel^{for the Respondent Bank deniedthe averments} of the Applicant and^{placesreliance upon the material papers} annexed with the^{reply statement. It is submitted that the Applicant'} account was classified^{as NPAin accordancewith RBI guidelinesand} thattheRespondentBankhadstrictlyfo|lowedthedueprocedure prescribed under the SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2 and the Rules framed} thereunder.^{Accordingly,soughtfor dismissalof the S'A'}

¶26

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

¶27

i) Whether the^{Appticantmade out any valid ground to} quash any of the measures^{initiated by the respondent} against the SA^{schedule properties as prayed for?}

ii) To what relief?

Page 4 of 5

SA No.396/2025

Point No.(i):

This Tribunal had granted interim stay on 18.09.2025 in IA.No.2666 of 2025 in pursuance to the Sale Notice dated 03.09.2025, and the respondent bank has not impleaded any auction purchaser in the present proceedings. In the absence of any concluded sale or a necessary party claiming rights under the auction, applicant contention of non-compliance of Rule 8(5), 8(6) g(7) & 9(1) of the Rules pertaining to the impugned auction need no consideration and SA has become infructuous to that extent.

¶33

The Respondent Bank relied on copies of documents annexed with the reply statement as a proof of compliance. pages 09 to 17 of the material paper annexed to the reply statement are the photostat copies of postal receipts, return cover and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 1g.02.2025 proving service of demand notice. Similarly, pages 1g to 25 are the Photostat copies of possession notice dated og.og.2025 being served via registered post, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 11.08.2025. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I flnd no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & B(2) ofthe Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶34

9' In view of above observation, it is concluded that the Applicant failed to establish any ground to interdict the action of Respondent Bank to take physical possession under the provision of the Act, 2002 7?ry6*

¶35

PaBe 5 of 5

¶36

SA No.396/2025

¶37

against the SA schedule^property and accordingly^the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is^hereby dismissed.

¶40

Consequently, stay granted vide order dated 18.09.2025ⁱⁿ IA.No,2666 of 2025 in the SA stands vacated and^{Interlocutory} Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

t2. No order as to costs.

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in the official website.

¶43

(Typed to my dictotion by the steno, corrected, signed ond^pronounced by me in the open^{court on this} the Toth doy of August, 2026).

¶44

6x* (RATVTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

S Venkateswarlu v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Venkateswarlu 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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Lakshmi Kalyan Venkateswara Chips unit

Bank of Baroda versus Sreenu

Ms Laxmi Balaji Marketing versus Icici Bank Limited

Venkata Ramana Reddy versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Syed Taj Peer versus Idbi Bank

Mr Chinthareddy Yeshwanth Reddy versus Bank of India