Dismissed

Korutla Sujatha v. Telangana Grameena Bank

DRT1 Sept 2025SA/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a loan defaulter challenging the bank's attempt to take physical possession of mortgaged property through an advocate commissioner. The court held that the bank duly complied with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, and the challenge was barred by res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession proceedings was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Korutla Sujatha versus Telangana Grameena Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE lST DAYOFSEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.132/2024

¶5

Smt.Korutla Sujatha, W/o Satyapal Goud, Occ:house wife, Sri Sai Residency, Flat No.D4, 3.d floor, Gurbabadi, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad

¶6

. . . Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Telangana Grameena Bank, Nandipet branch, Nizamabad

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for tlrc Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶11

Si Ch.Kishore Sn S.Mujib Kumar

¶12

.:ORDER:.

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI^Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for^taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nizamabadⁱⁿ Crl.M.P.No.1 13124 and to declare the same as illegal and^void.

¶14

The averments madc in the application, in brief, are that: The A Credit lacilities from the Respondent by ortgagcr in ofthc schcdule properly. Even though, the

¶15

Jint ,as f,cifut,:.. lrt g thc loan ducs, the Respondent initiated 0o.ggpi a sudden, on 18.03.2024, advocate

¶16

rlr. ner appoin tccl e Ld.CJM, Nizamabad issued notice to t for schedule premises. The Applicant is ready

¶17

and willing to regulartze the loan account. But the Respondent has not given any opportunity to the Applicant to regul arize the loan account. The Respondent has not issued any demand notice to the Applicant and the impugned possession notice was not served on the Applicant and it was not published in newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by filing crl.M.P.No.1 1 3124 on the file of l,d.cJM, Nizamabad only to harass the Applicant. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA and accordingly, Respondent issued demand notice dt.o6.09.2017 and the said notice was personally served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dL.26.1 1.2019 and thc said noticc was received by the Applicant and thc said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers. On earlier occasion, the Applicant filed SA 3391 19 on the file of this Tribunal challenging the said possession notice and the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 before Ld. cJM, Nizamabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. So thcre are no merits in the SA and accordipgly, Rc.sp.-o0dent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

t!:t' l'.t .x . ,.* rli '., - . ., ';' ,i;',. "i,rr,t;. i". .t
4. !FW"* "o. P,;{""";ii*,n. Applicant and Ld. counsel for the
t""fi ' T'iilt ffi" "i')t mate riar brough t on record
fifi
ir.,{!
'mq#

¶20

Now the points that arise lor consideration are

¶21

l. whether the Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for challenging tlrc steps initiated by the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule property through aduocate commissioner?

¶22

ii. To what relief?

¶23

Point No.(i|:-

¶24

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

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (linforcement) Rules 2OO2, the Respondent 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 d rn-.under.the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Ru r e s : "1 "'Kytl1i' .' :s .fi,1 i' I, : "': i,::: 1 : o :'^{". "} :: : i^" o r r,' : 1", a1a arsl ,f#;":ffi"i't'[#ffhe sARTAEST Act: 2oo2lor takins physical pflQessiorr of tlie schcctuT'd.dgpp"rty. In fact, earlier SA filed by the eppticant (8,":$r& $6g ffi"*"#l$.="."-,on notice was dismissed by

¶28

¶29

this'l'ribunal and so, the Applicant cannot challenge the possession notice issued by the Respondent in the present SA.

¶30

The Respondent bank liled copy of the order dt.26.O7.2023 in SA 3391 19 passed by this Tribunal. As per the said order, it is clear that the Applicant filed SA 3391 19 challenging the possession notice dt.26.ll.2O 19 issued by the Bank and the said SA was dismissed holding that the Respondent has issued demand notice dt.06.07.2019 and also possession notice dt.26.1 1.2019 and the Applicant reccived both the notices. It was also upheld in the said SA that the Respondent Bank has published the impugned possession notice in two daily newspapers and the said notice was aflixed on the schedule property. So, the Applicant cannot re-agitate about the validity or otherwise of the possession notice dt.26.11.2019 in the present SA as the same is barred by the principles of Res-judicata.

¶31

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of thc SARI,'ALISI Act,2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the conce rned 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 approached Ld. CJM, Nizamabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. CJM, Nizamabad after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.18.03.2024 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. So, the said notice issucd by thr: advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶32

So, consi proceedin before the Ld. CJM, Nizamabad u/s 14 o S4frtrAW 4rrr W ,oW'rifor taking physical possession of the schedule are quite l,egal valid and strictly in accordance with

¶33

¶34

the provisions^{of SARF'AESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunderand} there are^{no violations.so, I see no ground warrantinginterference of this} Tribunal with^{the steps initiated by the Respondent for takingphysical} possessionoftheschedulepropertyu/s14oftheSARFAES|Act,2oo2. Accordingly,^{this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against} the Applicant.

¶35

Point No.(ti):'

¶36

In the^{result,SA 132124is dismissed as there are no merits'}

¶37

pending if anY,^{shall stand}

¶38

L4. Consequently,^{the InterlocutoryApplications'} disposed of.^{No order as to costs'}

¶39

l5.CommunicateaCopyofthisordertothepartiesconcerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the^{P.s transcibedbg her,corrected,signed' and pronouncedby me in the opencourt on this the 1"daa} of Septernber,^2025).

¶41

sdl - (G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶42

lSEPM_ *
bt

¶43

TRUTcoPY
e^#
-lq-6ro,L'

Korutla Sujatha v. Telangana Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Korutla Sujatha v. Telangana Grameena 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

Mamidi Bajanna Para Boiled Industries, Rep by its partner: Mamidi Gajanand Reddy S/o Late M Bajanna versus State Bank of India