Dismissed

Maryada Vinutha Devi v. Union Bank of India

DRT20 Jan 2026SA/497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a farmer challenging a bank's prior-to-sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank duly followed statutory procedures for notices and valuation but observed a fresh notice was needed as no auction occurred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules.

Maryada Vinutha Devi versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL* I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATEDTHISTHE 1^gTH DAYOFJANUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

sA.No.497,/2024

¶6

Smt. Maryada Vinutha Devi, W/o K.Raghunath Reddy, Aged 66 years, R/o H.No. 1-1, Laxmapur(PN) Nadimpally, Achampet, Nagarkurnool-509 375

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Tersus

¶9

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Mahabubnagar-Il Branch, Opp.Public Head Quarters, Mahabubnagar-5090O 1

¶10

.. . Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counselfor Respondent

¶12

: Si D. Raglnuulu : Sn Snniuasa Rao Chakrala

¶13

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded to the u-tebsite on

: 15.12.2025

: 19.O1.2O26

: 2O.O1.2O26

ORDER

This Application is Iiled u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the.prior to Sale Notice dt.O2.t2.2124 issued by the Respondent".FqnE.;C;inst.thp schedule properties and to declare the same as nutkF[q Vbi&..;; s '=i;i\r !)

¶19

The averments made ry'tfu eppft"tih m U.i"F"\u. follows: ,i: ,'n I J ,uo drlrr ^ LULU :)lYiJ il t 'g^i'r. :i,ir \t",1,, ."..nr,t,!.,i; '-r:.,rii1l:ii };{

¶20

¶21

Respondent Bank sanctioned Agri Term loan of Rs.39.50 lakhs in the year 20 13 to the Applicant against the mortgage of schedule properties as securit5r for the said loan. Due to weather affect, fruits and vegetables are not grown as expected and even then, the Applicant paid regularly to the Bank without any default. A11 of a sudden, without any prior notices, some of the employees of the Respondent Bank visited the schedule property and given a copy of the 30 days sale notice dt.O2.12.2024. Without considering the request of the Applicant, the Respondent bank declared the loan account as NPA without following the due process of law. The Respondent bank failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and others. Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule properties and the sarne was not published in two leading newspapers. The Respondent bank failed to serve the impugned 30 days sale notice to the Applicant and the said notice was not published in two leading newspapers. The Respondent bank has not obtained valuation report before fixing the reserve price against the schedule properties. Hence the SA.

¶22

J. The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant in repaying the loan dues, the loan account of the Applicant was declared as NPA in the year 2023 and the Bank invoked the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice dt.O4.O3.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post and also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter the bank issued possession notice dt.21.O5.2024 and sent the said notice to the Applicant by Regd. post and also published the said notice in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the Bank issued 30 days sale noLice dt.O2.12.2024.:ff.dsent the same to the Applicant through Regd.Post and published-thel'-s4$.nq,tice in newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedrilF- ftoperl-ies. Before fixing reserve price, the Bank obtdined , vahlation repgl,[. dt.26.O3.2O24 ,"\ in respect of the schedule ,p6pertfp$ thiiir^?$e ' -1- earai; '^: has duly followed the procedure prescribed iinder the provisions.of^TSARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder r, -,: ".11. .,,,^.,.- ti !...' -,^,. . . 2 ' ,i - - -"-'i;L:.::'""'

¶23

and there are no violations. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶24

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶25

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶26

ii. uletlwr tle Applicant has established any ualid ground for chaltenging the impugned^prior to sare Notice dt.02.r2.2o24 isstted bg the ResponLent against the schedute properties?

¶27

iii. To ullwt relief?

¶28

Polnt I!Io.(i|:-

¶29

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

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed Agri rerm Loan of Rs.35 lakhs from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account of the Applicant was declared as NPA.

¶31

B. The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice, possession notice and prior to sale notice, the Bank is trying to sell the schedule properties without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and so id sale notices are not legal and valid and liable to be set

¶32

tended that the Bank issued all the statutory .."notices^to under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and ln,rJ $,* iii

¶33

fth.,,-"*€

¶34

10' To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents arong with the Repry filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classi$ring the loan account of the Applicant as NpA as per the guidelines of RBI, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.o4.o3.2o24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and, sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank and the said notice was arso published in Telugu and English daily newspapers and thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. when there is no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession Notice dt.2l.os.2o24 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in Engrish and relugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Bank and the said notice was arso affxed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(r)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002. After issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant as per the contemplated procedure, the Bank issued pre sale Notice dt'o2.12.2o24 u/r 8(6) of Rures, 2oo2 and. sent the same to the Appricant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postar track reports liled by the bank and the said notice was also pubrished in two da y newspapers and also affxed on the schedule properties. Before issuing the said notice, the Bank obtained valuation report dt.26.03.2024 from the approved valuer of the Bank as evidenced by the copy of the said report filed by the Bank.

¶35

duly followed the procedure as contemplated under Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in o T't--r-b'F-\ Notice dt.O2. I 2.2024 against the schedule ,,^.r! Respondent bank also issued e Auction Sale -^properties. l!:^rtg I ,",^{ruoutJadA$.&hozs-} conducting auction of the schedule properties ,a -j sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. W,lI,#

¶36

post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties.

¶37

However, during the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.23.Ol.2025, no auction was conducted by the Bank for want of bidders and so, the said notice becomes infructuous. As far as demand notice d1.O4.O3.2O24, possession notice dt.2 1 . OS.2O24 and pre_sale notice dt.02.12.2o24 €*e concerned, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules, made thereunder in issuing the said notices and so, the said notices are legal and valid and there are no violations and so, sA is liable to be dismissed. Suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶38

Polnt No.(11)t

¶39

In the result, SA 497 124 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.s, transcribed bg her, conected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open
dag of January, 2026).
.e\a.
t/ L.- 4q
sd/-
* (G. coPr CHANDIcoPr CHANDICHANDI
1 g t[|l PRESIDING OFFICER
't]26 )

¶42

sd/(G. coPr CHANDIcoPr CHANDICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER Asgrtcdsttar oir-t,^{u'{n*iats'"':}

Maryada Vinutha Devi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maryada Vinutha Devi 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

State Bank of India versus Basa Technologies Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Akkishetty Sreelatha

p srinivasulu versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Gaddam Saritheshwar Rao versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramana . M

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammad Hameed