Dismissed

kasani sekhar goud v. Union Bank of India

DRT15 May 2026SA/88/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Securitization Application No. 88 of 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's plea to quash the Respondent Bank's recovery proceedings and pre-sale notice. The court held the bank proved strict compliance with statutory notices under the SARFAESI Act, finding the Applicant failed to establish any infraction or valid ground to set aside the measures taken against the secured property.

What did the court decide?

No order passed to set aside the pre-sale notice or recovery measures; all interlocutory applications closed.

kasani sekhar goud versus Union Bank of India — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{15thDAY OF MAY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB' (HONS.),M.A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No. 88 OF 2025}

¶5

Kasani Sekhar Goud S/o. K. Shanti Kumar^Goud Aged: 49 years, Occ:^Business, Gender: Male, R/o.^{H.No.7-1-556,} Ground Floor, AmeerPet,^HYderabad, Telangana- 500016

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India Rep. by its Authorised^Officer ARB Branch, D.No.249/^{3'd, 1tt floor,} SR Nagar, Hyderabad,^Telangana

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the^APP|icant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

: Mr. Arun MarriPeddi : Mr. Srinivas Rao Chakrala

¶12

-: q-u-EB:-

¶13

The^present Securitization^{Application is filed by the Applicant} u/s.17 of the securitisation and^{Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for} short) to declare the action of^{the RespondentBank against the} application schedule^{property including the pre sale notice dated} 18.01.2025 as non-est in law.

¶14

The averments of the application, briefly, are that^{he availeda} loan of Rs.11,25,000/against the SA Schedule^{Propertyas security.} The Applicant claims to have been regular in repay4ent,^{but gue to} ffgo,,x

¶15

Page 2 of5

¶16

sA No.88/2025

¶17

some personal inconvenience, he defaulted in payment, as a consequence of which the loan account was classified as NpA. The Applicant avers that the Respondent Bank has neither provided him with a reasonable opportunity to repay the outstanding amount nor accepted his proposal for OTS under the Bank,s scheme. The Applicant further alleges non-compliance by the Respondent Bank with the provisions of Section 13(2) and Secuon 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, in respect of service of the demand notice and the possession notice, and contends that the Bank,s action amounts to violation of his right to property under Article 3OOA of the Constitution of India. In view of these submissions, the Applicant prays that the present Securitization Application be allowed and that the pre-sale notice dated 18.01.2025 issued against the SA Schedute Property be set aside.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that all statutory notices under the SARFAESI Act were duly issued and served in accordance with law. The demand notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 10.06.2016 and duly acknowledged, while the possession notlce under Section 13(4) was issued on 12.07.2077, affixed on the secured asset, and published in newspapers. Subsequent sale notices were also issued in 2021, 2022, and finally on 18.01.2025, all of which were either acknowledged or deemed to have been served, having been sent to the addresses furnished by the Applicants. Right under Article 300-A cannot be invoked to defeat lawful recovery proceedings initiated on account of non-payment of dues. The Bank emphasizes that it has stric y complied with the procedural requirements of the SARFAESI Act and Rules, including service and publication of notices, and that any non-receipt of certain notices by the Applicants is attributable to their own conduct in not updating

M"n'*

Page 3 of 5

SA No.88/2025

their address or in avoiding service.^{In support of these submissions,} the Respondent relies upon^{judicialprecedents includingCanara Bank} v. M. Amarender Reddy, wherein the^{SupremeCourt held that} individual notice to the borrower and^{public notice of sale may be} issued simultaneously,^provided a 30-day^{gap is maintainedbefore} the date of sale. Reliance is also^{placed upon Adhya Industriesv.} Vijaya Bank and the Telangana^High Court^{decision in Indian} Overseas Bank v. M/s Pure Life^{Sciences Lfd., which reiterate that} there is no mandatory^{requirement of a 30-day gap between issuance} of different notices, so long as there^is an^{overall 30-day period} between the notice of sale and^{the actualsale. Hence, SA is liable to} be dismissed.

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel for the^Applicant and^{Learned Counsel} for the Respondent Bank. Perused the written^{argumentsfiled by the} Applicant and Respondent Bank and also^perused the^material brought on record.

¶24

During the course of arguments, the^{Learned Counsel for the} Applicant and the Learned Counsel for the^{RespondentBank} reiterated their respective versions as set out^{in the SA and the Reply} Statement. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant urged^{that the} measures initiated against the SA Schedule Property in^{pursuance of} the pre-sale notice dated 18.01.2025 be set aside on the^{ground of} non-compliance with the prescribed^procedure of law. Whereas, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank affirmed that due procedure under the SARFAESI Act and Rules has been duly complied as is evident from the documents place record, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present 54/ Ht"r'"t

¶25

Page 4 of 5

¶26

SA No.88/2025

¶27

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶28

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing any of the measure imitated by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property including the pre sale notice dated 18.01.2025, as prayed for?

¶29

ii) To what relieQ

¶30

Point No.(i):

¶31

Admittedly, the applicant availed loan facility against mortgage of schedule property as security and failed to make payment as per repayment schedule. Hence the action of the respondent bank in classifying the account as NPA and initiating the SARFESI proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by the applicant.

¶32

B. The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure of law. Pages 11 to 15 of the material papers annexed to the reply statement are the Photostat copies of postal receipts and track reports proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 16 to 21 are the Photostat copies of possession notice being sent registered post, returned postal covers, photographs as proof of affixture on secured asset and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 13.07.2017. The pre-sale notice dated 18.01.2025 was duly served upon the Applicant. The documents^placed on record by the Respondent Bank remain undisputed. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2), 13(4) & 13(8) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1), B(2) & t%"H:::les,^2002.

PaBesofs

SA No.88/2025

In view of above observations, it is concluded that the applicants failed to establish any ground to set aside any of the measures including taking physical possession under the Act, 2OO2 against the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38