Dismissed

Puspak Energy Industry v. Union Bank of India

DRT1 Sept 2026SA/538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Security Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a sale notice issued by Union Bank of India. The Tribunal held the bank duly followed statutory procedures for demand, possession, and redemption notices, finding no merit in the applicants' claims of procedural violation.

What did the court decide?

Security Application SA 538/25 is dismissed as there are no merits. No ground warrants interference with the Sale Notice.

Puspak Energy Industry versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE l^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.538/2025

¶5

1.M/s Pushpak Energz Industry Rep. by its Proprietrix, Sy.No. 137lA, Nachahalli village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District-509 1 03

¶6

Madam Shetty Pushpa, W/o Madam Shetty Venkataswamy, Aged 67 years, Proprietrix of M/ s Pushpak Energr Industries, Nachahalli, R/o H.NO.42-24, Sainagar Colony, Kurnool Road, Wanaparthy-SO9 103.

¶7

Madam Shetty Venkataswamy, S/o M.Balaiah, aged 75 years, Occ:business , Rlo H.No.42-24, Sainagar Colony, Kurnool Road, Wanaparthy-SO9 103.

¶8

Madam Shetty Manmohan, S/o Madam Shetty Venkataswamy, -- .-. -. Aged R/o H.No.42-24, Sainagar 39 years, occ:business, Colony, ,--:; ..-.:::ii:: ---'9"* i .:,-,l"i \ Kurnool Road, Wanaparthy-sOg lO3iZ'li<sup>' " lil; ..: Ap.tplicants versus ,,'^4" I ' ir '].. il^o o a ni^ .-..*. it u I I1' '- ' Union Bank of India, ii t: *^ji 249 l3RT,l"t floor, Main Road, ,:.,i. .,. .-,.;i ,i'": ', S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad-S00 038. Resp6lndent t"' - l, ', ,'^.' -i.. ._T "i"--n' Counsel for the Applicants : Si Dishit.Bhanxiarjee Counsel for Respondent : M/s Sangeeta Jaisutal & Associafes

¶9

Reserued on 15.07.2026 Pronounced on 01.09.2026 Uploaded on o1.09.2026

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This application is Iiled by the Applicants^{u/s. 17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2O02, challenging impugned Sale^{Notice u/} r^{8(6) of Rules,2002} dt. 10.1 1.2025 issued by the Respondent^and to^{declare the sameas} illegal and void.

¶12

The averments made in the application,^{in brief, are that:} Applicant No.1 is a proprietorship concern^{represented by its} Proprietrix, Applicant No.2. Applicant^{No.1 availed ABOD facilityof} Rs. 140 lakhs and OCCGN facility of^{Rs.75 lakhs whereas Applicants} No.3&4 stood as^guarantors to the^{said loan facilities' The said facilities} were secured by the hypothecation^{of raw materials and mortgageof} the factory and also the^{property belongingto ApplicantsNo'2&3. The} Respondent illegally classified^{the loan accountof the Applicantsas} NPA during the moratorium^{declared by Government of India in Covid} pandemic and issued demand notice.^{Withoutconsideringthe request} of the Applicant No.1 for^{restructuringthe loan accounts, the} Respondent issued^{possessionnotice and the said notice wasserved} on the Applicants. Thereafter^{without consideringthe OTS proposal} made by the Applicants, the^{Bank again issued demandnotice} dt.17.O7.2025 and^{possession noticedt.31.10.2025and the said} possession notice was not afhxed on the^{scheduleproperties nor} published in two daily newspapers.^{Thereafter, Respondent Bank} proceeded further and issued Rule 8(6)^{noticedt. l0' 11.2025for} conducting auction of the^{scheduleproperties withoutfollowingthe} and the Lank failed to deduct the substantial^{amount of} by the Applicants. Hence the^SA.

¶13

filed their Reply denying all the^{adverseallegations} and contended that the^{Applicant No.1 availedOCC} s and OD facility of Rs. 140 lakhs^{and the loan}

¶14

account of the Applicant No.1 was classified as NpA on 27.O4.2O2O not due to financial reasons but due to non-renewal of the limits. SARFAESI notices issued during the pandemic period were withdrawn and after giving ample opportunity, the bank issued fresh demand notice dt.17.o7.2025 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants/guarantors by Regd. Post and the same was received by the Applicants and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.31 .ro.2025 by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the Respondent issued 30 days sale notice dt.10.11.2o2s and the said notice was served on the Applicants and the same was also published in two daily newspapers. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶16

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶17

uthether the Applicants haue established. any ualid ground.s for challenging the impugned sale Notice dt.10.11.2o2s issued. by the Respondent against the schedule properties?

¶18

ii. To u-that relief?

Point^jVo.(i):-

The undisputed facts of the case^{are that the Applicant No' 1 availed credit} facilities from the Respondent^{and ApplicantsNo.2&3 createdmortgage} against the schedule^{properties and thereafter, committed default in} repaying the loan dues and^so, the^{Respondentinitiatedproceedings} under the provisions of SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2 and issuedsalenotice} dt. 10. 1 1.2025.

¶23

g. The specific contention of^{the Applicants is that the Respondentwithout} serving demand notice^{and possessionnotice and withoutfollowingRule} 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 2002,^{straightawayissued 30 dayssalenoticewithout} following the^procedure and^{so, the said proceedings are null and void.}

¶24

g. Per contra, Respondent^{contended that the Applicants committed default} in repaying the loan^{dues and so, the loanaccounts were classified as NPA} as per the^guidelines of^{RBI and the Respondentissued freshdemand} notice, possession^{notice and 3O days sale noticeto the Applicantsby} duly following the^{procedure as contemplated under the provisions of} SARFAESI Act,2OO2^{and Rules made thereunder'}

¶25

To substantiate^{their contention,the Respondentliled material documents} alongwiththeReplyl-rledbythem.Asperthesaiddocuments,itisclear that the Respondent^{issued demandnotice dt'17 'O7 '2025 u/s 13(2)of the} SARAFAESIAct,2oo2andsentthesaidnoticetotheApplicantsand Post as evidenced^{by the postal track reports filed by}

¶26

isbrddi e said notice was^{also published in two daily} pes":9s by the copies of^{paperpublication filed by the}

¶27

i d.=oorra.t t. Thus tfr6'ie is valid^{service of demand notice on the} iXrrit&'XJff#-,n.;tjpricants^{failed to complvwith the said demand} i\ l.r,"[nri"g.no,tic€'.^{</sup> , the Respo qderit r;der,ii'iJsued i^{possessionnotice dt'31'lO'2025 u/s 13(a)} -,;'.. _l':J '^{., j'} i^,:}

¶28

of the Ag-t; aOOa'4qd-Jtrte^{said possession notice was sentto the Applicants} ""0^{*tiq$.$l,niarenRegd.post as evidencedby the postal track reports} fi1ed by the Respondent.^{The said notice was published in Teluguand}

¶29

¶30

English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication hled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice in respect the schedule properties.

¶31

Thereafter, the Respondent issued 30 days sale notice dt. 10. l l.2O2S for giving an opportunity to the Applicants/ guarantors to redeem the schedule properties within 30 days by paying the entire outstanding dues and as per the material documents filed by the Bank, the said notice was sent to the Applicants and others by Regd. post and the same was also published in two daily newspapers. However, the said notice is only a redemption notice issued u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and not auction notice for conducting auction of the scheduie properties and so, the said notice is perfectly legal and valid.

¶32

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the Sale Notice 10.1 1.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedule properties. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶33

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶34

In the result, SA 538/25 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶35

pending if any, shall stand

¶36

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

¶37

(Dtctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedby me in the open} court on this the 1n dag of September,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶38

sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDIilG OFFICER

¶39

Tr"d#z
0 1 sEP flirf;
,oor'* ffit
pir-1, aYcsnP[]i;'

Puspak Energy Industry v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puspak Energy Industry 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sirvi Marketing

South Indian Bank versus Ms. Mamidala Kavitha

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mrs. Jayasudha Routhu

State Bank of India versus Mrs.Chapa Ramana

S Charishma versus Hdfc Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Abhinav Industries