Dismissed

b santosh kumar v. State Bank of India

DRT4 Jul 2025SA/125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the bank's action to take physical possession of the secured asset, alleging procedural lapses and lack of address change intimation. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding the applicant failed to prove irregularities and having already litigated similar issues, the issue of interdicting possess

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed, pending interlocutory applications are closed, and no order as to costs.

b santosh kumar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

iN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALJT AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE FOURTH DAY OF )ULY ,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLIATION No. 125 oF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bhupathi Santosh Kumar S/o B. Laxmi Narayana Age: 43 years Occ: Employee of SBI Flat No. 506, Vamshi Residency Ga ngastha n, Nizamabad Dist. Telangana - 500 003.

¶7

.......Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

State Bank of India Retail Assets Central^processing Centre-4 2n'1 Floor, Vijay Sai Towers Opp: BIP Office, Kukatpaily Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 072 Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶10

....Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Arun Marripeddi. Counsel for Respondent : Mr. N. Meher prasad.

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

Applicants filed the Securitisation Application u/s t7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to aS "SARFAESi Act ") assailing the acrion of respondent bank

Qfrry'''t"

5A ].2512024

to take the^{possession of the applicationscheduleproperty vide} Eviction Notice dated^{28.02.2024 in pursuance of Crl'M'P' No'} 44 of 2024.

¶18

Applicant filed the^{present SA challengingthe action of} respondent bank in^{proceedingagainst the secured asset for} taking the^{physicalpossession vide Vacate Noticedated} 28.02.2024. The averments of^{the SA in brief are that} applicant availed^{housing loan in 2010 and the EMIsare spread} over 24O months.^{Applicant was suspendedby his employeron} 16.02.2018. Applicants was^{payingthe EMIs and the loan} account was regularised^{on clearingthe outstandingdues'} Applicant has^given the SA^{schedule premises on lease and he} is staying in his Nizamabad address.^{Applicanthas last} upgraded the account on^{24.t2.2020. Respondenthas} mechanically disposed of the^{representation raising objections'} Respondent bank has served the^{securitisation notices at the} leased out premises. The rate of^{interest shouldbe charged as} per the norms applicable to staff of the creditor^bank. Respondent bank issued demand^{noticedated 19.06.2020 and} was affixed on the SA schedule^{property where tenantis} residing. Applicant came to know^issuance of^{possessionnotice} dated 07.09.2020 through the tenant.^{The possessionnotice} was issued demanding the same amount^{notified in the demand} notice and without taking into account the^{payments made in} the post demand notice. The eviction notice dated^28.02.2024 is non-sustainable in eyes of law. A fraud has been^played on the applicant.

¶19

Respondent bank filed the reply statement. Respondent bank stated in the reply statement that the applic.1ry1t earlier filed SA ffi'&

¶20

sAt2sl2024

¶21

No.9 of 2021 challenging the sale notice fixing the auction date as 05.07.2021 which ended in dismissal. The demand notice dated 19.06.20L9 returned unserved and respondent bank published the same in Mana Telangana and Business Standard dated 25.06.20L9. Respondent bank has not received any representation/objections to the demand notice. Thereafter, respondent issued possession notice on 07.0g.2020, published in two newspapers and affixed on the secured asset. The present sA is filed to create hurdles in the securitisation proceedings for recovery of dues.

¶22

Applicant filed written arguments in place of oral arguments. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. perused the written arguments filed by the applicant and the material brought on record.

¶23

while reiterating the preadings taken in the reply statement, learned counsel for the respondent bank prayed for dismissal of the sA on the ground that the applicant has defaulted in paying the dues despite notices. The allegations against the respondent bank are baseless and not true. Though applicant, having alleged various lapses on the part of the respondent bank, failed to produce even an iota of proof in support of the same including the representation/objections allegedly addressed to the respondent bank.

¶24

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶25

Whether the Applicants made out o volid ground ./br interdictin54 the proceedings o/' respondent bank u/s 11 of the SARFAESI Act initiated against the SA schedule properties?

¶26

sA L2s12024

¶27

¶28

ii) 71t v hut relief?

¶29

Point No.^(i):

¶30

Applicant filed the^{present SA against the action of respondent} bank to take^{the physicalpossession of the SA schedule} property through Advocate^{Commissioner vide notice dated} 28.02.2024^{pursuant to warrant in Crl'M'P'44 of 2024 on the} grounds of respondent bank^{having not consideredthe} objections raised^{by him and without following due procedurein} issuing demand^{notice and possession notices' The other} grievance of the applicant^{is that the respondentbank has not} extendedthebenefitofsubsidisedinterestapplicabletothe employees of^{the bank.}

¶31

S.Admittedly,applicantfirstcommitteddefaultandsubsequently got the account regularised after^{clearingthe overdue} instalments. Applicant^{was an employee of respondent bank} and faced some disciplinary^{action' Respondentdenied of} receiving any^{representation/objectionsfrom the applicant'} Applicant has not^{placedon record any copy of representation/} objection alleged to have^{been addressed to the respondent'} Respondent bank filed a^{photostat copy of order passed in SA.9} of 2O2l on 06.10.2023,^{wherein the case has beendiscussed} thread bare basing on the material^{placed therein. trt is evident} from the order dated 06.L0.2022, the applicant^{was removed} from service on 07.01.2020, whereafter he did not^intimate change of address if any, for communication. Accordingly, respondent bank sent notices to the address at secured asset. The issues raised in the present SA were already adjudicated in SA.9 of 2021 being the subject ^urr", the ffiherefore,

¶32

sA t2s/2024

¶33

applicant is not permitted to reagitate the same issues in the present sA. Applicant has suppressed the fact of the secured asset having been auctioned on 05.01.2021 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder. Under these facts and circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the action of respondent in obtaining orders u/s 14 of the SARFASI Act for the purpose of taking the physical possession of the secured asset under the securitisation proceeding for recovery of outstanding dues from the applicant.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid observations, I hold that the applicants have failed to make any valid ground to interdict the impugned proceedings of taking of physical possession of the SA schedule property through the Advocate Commissioner appointed u/s L4 of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed,

¶35

Point No.(ii):

¶36

In the result the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in official Web Portal.

¶39

(Dictoted to the ,teno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th doy of .futy, 2025).

¶40

2Yv<,"q<Xw"t ' i / / (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

b santosh kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

b santosh kumar v. State 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

Uco Bank versus M/S. D a F Industries

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sri Vasavi Industries

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Bhavani Engineering Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bolagoti Kotagala Mallamma

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S. Kanakadurga Cotton Company

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Agencies and another versus Bank of India