Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde

DRT17 Nov 2025OA/461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery tribunal application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant challenged the respondent's proceedings for physical possession via an advocate commissioner. The Tribunal examined whether the statutory requirements under Section 13(3A) and Rule 8 were met. Finding that the respondent complied with the mandatory notice provisions and rules, the Tribunal held the proceedings

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no order as to costs; interrogatory applications pending, if any, disposed of.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.461/2024

¶5

Mr.Kallem Balashankar, S/o K. Ramulu, Aged 43 years, occ:agricutlrue, R/o H.No.5-88, Sy.No.509, Valigonda (V&M), Ydagiri-Bhuvanagiri District-SO8 I 12. . .. Applicant

¶6

And

¶7

M/s five Star Business Finance Ltd., Regd. office : New No.27, Old No.4, Taylor's Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Rep. by its Authorized officer ... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant SiAkkapaka Siniuas Counsel for the Respondent Si B. Rauindra Reddg Reserued on 17.10-2025 Pronounced on 1 1 .1 1.2025 Uploaded on 17.11.2025

¶9

.:ORDER:.

¶10

This is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act,

¶11

schedule Advocate commissioner and to declare the same

¶12

in brief, are that:

¶13

The Applicant is a farmer who availed loan of Rs.6 lakhs from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan. Due to his brother's hospitalization, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. The Respondent preferred the matter to the arbitration and basing on the award in Arbitration Case No.ARC/FSBFL/392, approached Hon'ble Principal District Jude, Yadagiri Bhuvanagiri by fi1ing E.P.No.42l23 and the same is pending. The Respondent issued demand notice dt. 1 1.06.2024 u/s l3(2)of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and in response to the said notice, the Applicant raised objections vide legal notice dt. 12.08.2024 but without giving any reply, the Respondent issued possession notice and the said possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers. During the pendency of the SA, the Respondent though advocate commissioner issued notice dt.O4.O6.2O25 for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and so the said proceedings are not legal. Hence the SA.

¶14

.). The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant along with Kallem Sathyalakshmi as co-borrower availed loan from the Respondent for business purpose by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. After availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classilied as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI. The Respondent issued demand notice dt.ll.06.2024 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. Post. and the said notice was published in Telugu And English daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Respondent has issued reply notice dt. 12. 4 to the raised by the Applicant in response to the notice.dt. 11. 4. When the Applicant failed to comply ;, with IFg5 o"T?"fr n i "i i ; t \I..n:"dent issued ro"":"""". Tu"." at. r{[ff.zoz'+^{/JJL llff o"} "ff 'oti""^{to the Applicant throughRegd.} Ko-hr,"-.,*# grthy

¶15

Post and the said notice was published in Mana Telangana and The New Indian Express newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus the Respondent has followed tJle procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the

¶17

Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. uhether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.14.1 1 .2024 and also tte steps initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the scledule propertA through aduocate commissioner?

¶20

ii. To uhat relief?

¶21

Polnt No.lil:-

¶22

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

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property toJi{4gd&legurity for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant commi#ied de tf a d{t.&t;,tdpavine the loan dues and the loan account^was ii\ - .r#_. .it -

¶24

classified as N$E Th&p is also no dispute regarding the fact that^the Respo ndennde! t iss tr i?d demand dptice {otice dt. 1 1.06.2024 to the Applicant and^the nppfcart fJ"i{[16 ffi saia'nqtice and raised objections in response to^the ,. ,i

¶25

said notice vide letter dt.L2,@.2024.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without complying with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2OO2, t}:e Respondent straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶27

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2O02.

¶28

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued their reply vide letter dt.30.08.2024 in response to the objections sent by the Applicant to the demand notice issued by the Respondent and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal receipt liled by the Respondent and so, the Respondent has complied with Sectionl3(3A) of the SARFAESI Act,2002. When there was no response from the Applicant to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued^possession notice dt. 14.11.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the^postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper t and the said notice was also affixed on in the copies of photographs filed by the t has duly followed Ruie 8(l)&(2) of

¶29

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶30

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13( ) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, t}:re secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Bhongir, u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by liling Cr1.M.P.No.59 125 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. Ld.CJM, Bhongir, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.04.06.2025 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property and the Applicant filed copy of the said notice along with the SA. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶31

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶33

as there are no merits. 1tfiilttar-

¶34

i4. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Diddted to the Ps trdn scribed bg her, @rreded sigt*d ,,,d. ptorlounced bg me in the opea aurt on this *e 1 zh of Nowibe\ 2025).

¶37

sdl(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDIIG OFrICER

¶38

1 7 t{0t, 2025

¶39

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Geeta Priyanka Vyde

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

Mrs Korthiwada Anasuya versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri. Madhubabu Chilamakuru

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbs Industries

Padala Narmada Lakshmi versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Syed Aslam Hussain

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kormani Uday Arun