Dismissed

V Raghavendra v. Union Bank of India

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/46/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the Bank's Sale Notice and proceedings for taking physical possession under the SARFAESI Act, alleging procedural violations. The Court found the Applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with conditional stay orders in previous applications and dismissed the present application for lack of merits.

What did the court decide?

Application No.46/2025 dismissed as there are no merits; pending Interlocutory Applications disposed of.

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29IH DAY OF JUNE,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.46/2025

¶5

Mr.V.Raghavendra S/o V.Anantha Krishna, Aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5t l97l-A, SBI Colony, Kurnool-S18001. ... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India Rep. by its Authorized officer Stressed Assets Management Branch, 3'd floor, Andhra Bank building, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. ... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn T.Sndhar Reddy

¶9

Counsel for the Respondent : Sn T.Sethu Madhaua Rao

¶10

Reserued on :24.04.2026 Pronounced on :29.06.2026 Uploaded to the uebsite on : 30.06.2026

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Application is filed :uls.l7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 pSI Act,2OO2)- challenging the proceedings initiated by the k for taking physical possession of the schedule property

¶13

: ."'r^ih;ffih "fl commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.Addl.CJM, "r' Meffial-tvt District and also the 8(6) Notice dt.O1.O2.2025 issued Bank and to declare the same as null and void.

¶14

2Wuuq

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant is a guarantor to the credit^{facilitiessanctionedby the} Respondent Bank to the borrower M/s Ramakrishna^{ElectronicsP.Ltd.} and M/s Ramakrishna Telectronics P.Ltd and the^{Bank obtained} signatures of the Applicant on various blank documents.^{The Respondent} Bank charged exorbitant interest in the loan account and^{the same was} never informed to the Applicant nor to the borrower. Subsequently,^the borrower and others requested the Bank for OTS and^{the Bank sanctioned} the same for a total amount of Rs.75.25 cores and the^{Applicantthough} the hnancier paid Rs.1O.26 crores in No-Lien account with the^Bank. However due to financial problems, the said OTS amount^{could not be paid} to the Bank within the stipulated time.. The borrower also^{requested the} Bank vide letter dt.30.03.2j24 to extend the OTS till 30.06.2024^{but the} bank refused to extend the time as^per the OTS. Thereafter,^{the Bank} issued the sale notice dt.17 .O9.2O24 hxing the date of auction^on 08.0 1 .2025 in respect of SA schedule property and other^{propertiesfixing} the date of auction ot 29.01.2025 and the said auction could not^be materialized. In the meanwhile, all of a sudden, the advocate commissioner along with some recovery agents came to the schedule^{property on} o5.O2.2O25 and served a Vacation Notice dt.28.0L2O25 demanding the Applicant and other tenants to hand over the^possession of the^said property and they also served a copy of the Notice dt.Ol.O2.2O25 allegediy issued by the Bank u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2OO2 givir.'g 30 days time to the borrower to pay the amounts. The bank is^proceeding for sale of the ithout serving any prior notices to the borrower and said notices are not published in two leading JP"p" to follow Rule 8(7)&9(1) of Security Interest Hence the SA. {-!""'?'rwhryo}8"'

¶17

¶18

made

¶19

ed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations contendpd that M/s Ramakrishna Electronics and

¶20

others including the Applicant filed SA 321 l18 before the Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the measures initiated by the bank u/s 13(4) of the SARFAEIS Act, 2OO2 and in the said SA, the Hon'ble Tribunal granted interim conditional stay subject to deposit of 2Oo/o of the outstanding dues as mentioned in Rule 8(6) notice dt.27.O6.2}1a, however, the Applicants faiied to comply with the said order and the said SA 321 l18 was dismissed on 04.10.2019 as not pressed as settled out of court, however there is no settlement of the account outside the court. Thereafter, the bank issued e- auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 challenging the same, the Applicant as a partner of M/s Ramakrishna Electronics filed S.A No.108 of 2023 before this Tribunal and in the said SA, this Hon'ble Tribunal granted conditional stay. Thereafter, the bank issued e-auction sale notice dated 30.11.2023 and the Applicant sought for stay of the auction to be held on 16.11.2023 and this Hon'ble Tribunal vide orders dared 15. 1 1.2023 granted conditional stay however, the Applicant failed to comply with the said order and the said SA 10812023 was dismissed on 02.05.2024 as withdrawn. Subsequently the bank again issued sale notice dt.l|.12.2023 and challenging the same, the Applicant herein and his brother V. Ravi Kumar filed SA 54512023 before DRT -ll, Hyderabad and in the said SA also, conditional stay was granted vide orders dated, 29 .12 .2023 but the Applicant failed to comply with the said orders and the said SA was dismissed on O2.O5.2O24 as withdrawn. In view of the above, it is clear that the Applicant has been dragging on the matter by filing SAs in the years 2018, 2023 andin2025.ln spite of so much opportunities given and the OTS sanctioned by the bank, the Applicant failed to pay the approved OTS amount within the stipulated time and as such the said OTS was cancelled.

¶21

again issued the impugned Rule 8(6) notice dated rorrower and other guarantors including the Applicant j ?"5| irti$^{gp4ce rans sent by Registered Post and the same was served on} B. .",n.^{Applicant. ,T:*n the Respondent bank givenopportunitlr to redeem} 8(6) notice dt.Ol.O2.2O25, the Applicant and the

¶22

¶23

borrowers/ guarantors have^{failedto exercisethe right of redemptionas} contemplated under section^{13(8) of the SARFAESI Act' The said notice} was published in Indian Mail,^{Prajashaktiand Mana Telangana daily} newspapers and thus the bank^{has followed the procedure contemplated} under the^provisions of^{SARFAESIAct,2OO2and rules made thereunder'}

¶24

In the meanwhile the Applicant^{and his brotherV. Ravi Kumar without the} written consent of the bank, executed^{collusiveagreementof sale during} the subsistence of the mortgage, in^{favour of one Jalala Surender' When} the bank issued sale^{notice dt.05.11.2024 in respect of the schedule} property, the said agreement holder filed SA^{451 of 2024 before this} Hon'ble Tribunal. The said agreement^{holder also hled IA 2941 of 2024} seeking stay of all further^{proceedings and the said IA was dismissed'} When the Applicant failed to obtain interim^{orders through the alleged} agreement holder in SA⁴⁵¹ 12024,^{now the Applicant flled the presentSA} challenging the^proceedings initiated^{by the bank for takingphysical} possession of the schedule^property and also^{the sale notice dt.o1.02.2025} issued by the bank. According^{the bank prayed to dismiss the SA.}

¶25

Heard Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent} bank and perused the^{material brought on record.}

¶26

Now the points that arise for consideration^are

¶27

ii. tu?ether tle Applicant has estoblisLred^{ang ualid grounds} for challenging tlrc lmpugned Sale^{Notice dt.01.02.2025and also tte} s initiated bg the bank for taking^{phgsicalpossession of}

¶28

7s propertA through Aduocate Commissioner^pursuantto Ld.Addl. CJM, Medchal-Malkaj^{giri District2}

¶29

¶30

2 I^JUil tn.

¶31

¶32

Point .l\Io.(if :-

¶33

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶34

There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicant herein is a guarantor to the credit facilities availed by M/s Ramakrishna Electronics p.Ltd. and Ramakrishna Teletronics P.Ltd.and created mortgage against the schedule property in security to the repayment of the said loan facilities and thereafter, the borrowers committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan account of the borrower as NpA, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARAESI Act,2002 and issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.Ol.O2.2O2S and also proceeded for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and challenging the said measures, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶35

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.Ol .O2.2O25 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.

¶36

But the Respondent Bank contended that they have issued all the to the Applicant under the provisions of SARFAESI

¶37

/rt,iAct,2( made thereunder and also followed the procedure

¶38

//h^.onr., the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules j$prqr4der lrr ing physical possession of the schedule propertSr.

{, l* T"9' .rJ ,

/.\ F- ,,,

^i".^}i',

*k-b, HiD6i:s7' ER"j:';y'

¶43

t2. To substantiate their contention,^Respondent Bank^{filed material} documents along with the Reply^{hled by them. Along with the documents,} the bank filed copies of interim^{orderspassed in SA 321} ll8'³²²¹¹⁸ passed by Ld.DRT-II, Hyderabad and SA lOBl23^{passedby DRT-I,} Hyderabad. A perusal of the said^{orders makes itciearthat} borrowers/Applicant herein have^{filed SAs in the years 2018, & 2023 by} raising similar contentions. The^{avalimentof credit facilities by the} borrower from the Respondent^{bank and creation of mortgagein respect} of the schedule^{propertyand subsequentdefault madeby the borrowers} in repaying the ioan dues are^{not under dispute. In all the threeSAs, the} borrowers/Applicant^{obtained interim conditional stay orders but failed} to comply with the^{same. Thereafter,the Applicant and his brother} executed a collusive agreement^{of salein favour ofone Mr.Jalala} Surender and when^{the Bank issuedfresh sale notice dt.oS.11.2024in} respect of the schedule^{properry,the said agreementholder liled SA} 451 124 before this Tribunal^{and this Hon'ble Tribunaldismissed the stay} petition vide orders dt.2g.ll.2024.^{when the Applicant failed to obtain} interim orders through the^{alleged agreementholder in SA 451/24, now,} the Applicant fi1ed the^{present SA and this Tribunalgranted conditional} stay, however without^{complying with thesaid interimorder} dt.Ll.O2.2O25^{passed in thepresent SA, theApplicantfiled} wp.No.S317/25 before^{the Hon'ble High court for the state of Telangana} and the same is^{pending whichshowsthat the Applicant is making all} efforts to delay the^{proceedings initiated by the Bankto recovertheir huge} legitimate dues.

¶44

In tion, Ld. counsel for^{the RespondentBank relied on the} Apex Court in M/s Prestige Lights Ltd.^{Vs. State} in Para 2I, it is held^{as follows:}

¶45

'x 2^{g JU't ,n?(}

¶46

:1 ,,An bg a competent court inteim or final has^{to be} 1 ang reseruation. If^such order is disobeged^{or not}

¶47

complied with, the Court may refuse the party uiolating such order to hear him on merits. We are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a partg to the proceeding on meits is a^,drastic step, and such a serious penaltA should not be imposed on him except in graue and extraordinary situotions, but some time such an action is needed in the larger interest of justice uhen a partg obtaining inteim relief intentionaltg and deliberately flouts such order bg not abiding the tenns and conditions on uhich a relief is granted bg the Court in hb fauour. "

¶48

Thereafter, when the Applicant failed to comply with the interim orders, the Bank proceeded further and issued fresh 30 days Sale Notice dt.o1.o2.2o25 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and other guarantors/ borrowers through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The said notice was published in Indian Mail, Praja Shakti and Mana Telangana daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies ofpaper publication fired by the Bank and so, the said notice is perfectly legal and valid. whereas compriance of Rure g(7)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 as alleged by the Applicant is concerned, the same does not arise as the Bank has not taken steps for auction of the schedule property by issuing regular sale notice u/r 9(1) of Rules, 2002 and the notice in challenge is only a pre-sare notice giving 30 days time to the borrower/ mortgagor to redeem the secured asset by paying the entire outstanding dues. Further, when it comes to the proceedings initiated by the bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property, the Bank proceeded u/s 14 0fthe SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the secured asset by obtaining orders .CJM, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the advocate inted by the Ld.CJM, Medchal-Malkajgiri District .O1 .2025 to the Applicant herein to vacate the the said notice was duly served on the Applicant. f the opinion that the Bank has duly followed the ; :-a^i:3::&[ffiH iJ t"-.e at -Q.R'l W,nq#

¶49

procedure in proceeding u/s t4 of the^{SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking} physical possession ofthe schedule^{property and also in issuingPre-sale} notice dt.01.o2.2025 in^{respectof the scheduleproperty.This point is} answered accordinglY.

¶50

Point No.(ii)r

¶51

In the result, SA^{461 2025 isdismissedas thereare no merits'} Consequently, the^{Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand} disposed of. No^{order as to costs.}

¶52

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶53

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed by^{her, conected, signed and pronouncedbg me in the open} court on this^the29tt' dag of June, 2026).

¶54

sd/-
(G. GOPI CHAND}
PRESIDING OTFICER
fi,'.tl
,#:,':;,f?lxx'^'

¶55

V Raghavendra v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Raghavendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

Mr Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy versus State Bank of India