Partly allowed

Mr Chandra RajiniKanth v. Axis Bank

DRT15 Oct 2025SA/131/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the legality of physical possession actions by the Respondent Bank for non-compliance of notice and affixation procedures under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found the Applicant's claims unchallenged due to the Respondent's ex-parte status, partially allowing the application to set aside the possession notice while dismissing issues regarding the lower court's commission.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is partly allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 10.09.2024. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.

Mr Chandra RajiniKanth versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TE DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 131 0F 2025

¶5

Mr. Chandra Rajinikanth S/o. Mr. R. P. Chandra Sekhar Age 50 Years, Occ: Business Gender lvlale, R/o. Dammaiguda H.No. Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandalam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶6

....... Applica nt

¶7

Versus

¶8

Axis Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Centre No.5-4- 124, Modi Sq ua re 3'd Floor, R P Road, Secunderabad Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶9

... .... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent Ex parte

¶11

Mr. T. Vijay Kumar

¶12

-:o_B_ql_B:-

¶13

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Appllcant u/s.77 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to declare the action in taking physical possession of the property through advocate commissioner appointed in Crl.lY.P.No.3412025 on the file of the Hon'ble I ASCG, Ranga Reddy Court, as illegal, void and contrary to rules.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed loan facilities from the respondent bank. Due to financial problems not paid some instalments. Demand notice/ possession notice were not served, the possession notice was not affixed and published as per Rules. Respondent bank obtained orders from the Hon'ble I ASCG, tvedchal in Crl.M.P.No.3412025 against the schedule property. The respondent bank failed to follow the procedures contemplated underJ3(2), 13(4) of the ,/wo

¶15

2of2

¶16

sAt3Ll2O25

¶17

Act and Rule B(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence, this SA.

¶18

The respondent bank was set ex-parte on t6.07.2025 as called absent and no representation despite service of notice.

¶19

Heard the Learned counsel for applicant. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

It is the contention of applicant that the respondent bank failed to serve demand notice and possession notice under Sec.13(2) and 13(a) of the Act and failed to publish and affix the possession notice. As stated supra, respondent bank remained ex parte to the SA proceedings and hence no material is available as proof of compliance of procedure of law. Under such circumstances, the contentions of applicant remain unchallenged with regard to possession notice and accordingly SA deserves to be partly allowed.

¶21

Since advocate commissioner is appointed by Learned I ASGC, no order can be passed by this tribunal pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.34/2025 proceedings.

¶22

In the result, the SA is partly allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated LL.09.2024 in respect of SA schedule property.

¶23

Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the website.

¶24

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15!h day of October, 2025).

¶25

Ow*u (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Chandra RajiniKanth v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chandra RajiniKanth v. Axis Bank

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

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shashikanth Badri Meenaiah

Bank of India versus Sri Adepu Varun Kumar, S/O Adepu Rajaram

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Mr Gandi Bhargav Goud versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited