In an application challenging a possession notice under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal upheld the Respondent Bank's action. The Court found the bank complied with Section 13(2) notice requirements and Rule 8 despite claims of defective service, dismissing the application.
The Application was dismissed as there were no merits violated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DATED THIS THE 8I'I] DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No. 134/2c^23
Janagaon-506303.
aged 36 years, Occ:bursiness,
R/o FI.No . l- 12, Gopyanayak Thanda, Madoorkalan, Devuruppala(M), ! Jangaon. j.' 'jt' 6. Mrs.Daravath Vijaya(LR), li -, 0 0 SfP amf * D/o B.Mangtya Naik, \l ;i ? ^-^Aae n^^.r^,,^:-^^^ \': d{ l"rl
... Applicants
Madoorkalan, Devuruppala(M), Jangaon.
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank.,
Rep. by its Authorized officer Jangaon branch,6 -2-4lS l39 l A, Hyderabad Road,Jangaon-S 06 I 6T
... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent
: Sri T.Sridhar : Si A.Krishnam Raju
ORDER
Applicant No.1 avaiied loan from the Respondent for business purpose whereas Applicants No.2 to 6 stood as guarantors and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties. Subsequently, Applicant No.1 could not repay the loan dues and So, the Respondent declared the loan account as NPA and straightaway issued possession notice dt.31 .OL.2023 without issuing any demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. The said t published in two leading newspapers and it was not properties. Hence the SA.
l+, Jooffpmi : ,\B*.4 .s'-sr fu'##
possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.
Point No.(it):-
transcibed by her,, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open g of September, 202s).
.d<br>lrv
sd/-
* (G. GOPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
'S'.
fr:tu r..tr$ tK#ffi-#/ offir#;A;o
fuT##W'affi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicants established valid grounds to challenge the Possession Notice dated 31.01.2023 issued by the Respondent?
What relief is appropriate in light of the procedural compliance by the Respondent?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Sai Poultry farm
Mr. Banoth Ramkoti Nayak
Mr. Banoth Ravinder
Smt. Bhulrya Veeravva
Mrs. Banoth Satti
Indian Overseas Bank.
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
