Dismissed

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud v. Canara Bank

DRT15 Jul 2025SA/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged a possession notice issued by the bank, alleging failure to serve a mandatory demand notice and improper publicity. The court examined evidentiary documents including postal tracking reports, published newspaper copies, and photographic evidence. Finding that the bank had scrupulously followed Section 13(2) and Rule 8 procedures, the court rej

What did the court decide?

The application filed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as there were no merits due to strict compliance by the bank.

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud versus Canara Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 sTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.O9./2c24

¶4

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud, S/o AnjaiahGoud, Occ: business, R/o H.No.8-6-Bltl lB, Plot No.80&81, Padmavathi Colony, Near SBH Mahabubnagar, Telangana-509001.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus Canara Bank, Jadcherla Branch, D.No.11-88 to 92, Nethaji Road, Badepally, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar-50930 1. Rep. by its Authorized Officerby its Authorized Officerits Authorized OfficerAuthorized Officer

¶7

Rep. by its Authorized Officerby its Authorized Officerits Authorized OfficerAuthorized Officer ... Respondent Bank Counsel for the Applicant : Si K.Kranthi Kumar Counsel for Respondent Bank : Si G. Rangaiah

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is fired u/s. rTof the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2oo2l challenging the possession Notice dt.18.1 l.2o2g issued by the RespondentBank in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

by the Applicant in brief are as follows: availed loanfrom the Respondent Bank and the to the said loan facility and created

¶11

sA 9/24

¶12

mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r. Due to Covid_ 19, the borrower could not repay the loan dues andthe Respondent bank published the possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act in newspapers without issuing any demand notice and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and also not published in two leading newspapers. So, thesaid impugned possession notice is not legal and liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶13

¶14

The Respondent Bank liled their Reply denying alr the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the borrower BodavathNamya @ B.Nanu availed Horticulture plantation loan to a tune of Rs.95 lakhs from the Respondent bank and the Appricant herein stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedure property. Later, the borrower committed defaurt in repaying the 10an dues and so, the roan account was classified as NpA on 2z.og.2o2r. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued demand notice dt.2s.og.2o2s u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2and the said notice was sent through Regd.Postto the Applicant and others and it was also published in Financial Express and Mana Telangana daily newspapers. But the borrower and the Applicant did not comply with the said notice and so, possession notice dt. 19.11.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2002 was issued by the bank and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in mana Telangana and Business standard daily newspapers and thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure contemprated under the provisions of 94REbpsl .- -. - - -^{Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder} in issuing possession "".:..-.*-.

¶15

d\ *4' 1SqLtrrt?qcounsel^{for the Appricantand Ld. counsel for the Respondent} i{\ - eank. Perused the material brought on record. -.S {.'t W;ffi,r-$

¶16

sA 9/24

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. whether tle Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.j8.11.2023 issued bg the Respondent Bank against ttrc schedule property?

¶19

ii. To what relief?

¶20

Point .t\Io.(i):-

¶21

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

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the fact thatone B.Namya @ B.Nanu availed loan from the Respondent Bank and the Applicant herein stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that theborrower committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent bank issued possession notice to the Applicant.

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and also not afhxed on the scheduie propert5r and the Bank failed to serve demand notice to

¶24

,;.,'::'!fif.fipppcent and so, the said possession notice is illegal and liable to be

¶25

1 5 J|Jt^,#{

¶26

sA9/24

¶27

Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2oo2 and. Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and others.

¶28

In order to substantiate their contention, theRespondent Bank filed relevant material documents along with the Repry filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account as NPA, theRespondent Bank issued demand notice dt.25.0g.2O23 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the said notice to the

¶29

Applicant and others through Regd.post and the said notice was also published in English and relugu daily newspapers and thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. when the borrower and the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt. 1gll.2023 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal track report hled by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs fired by the Respondent Bank. Thus, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶30

*
s

¶31

1 1 . Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the RespondentBank laid down under the provisions ,.^{''"*a</sup> session notice to the thereunder Applicant and in issuing there demandare no}

¶32

,io,',"lAA! , this point is answered in favour of 1 5 {t[nenpondehtBank^and against the Applicant.

¶33

sA 9/24

¶34

Potnt No.(tl)t

¶35

In the result, SA 9 I 2024 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the p.S, transcibed. bg^he. corrected, signed and pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the lghdag of Julg, 2025).

¶38

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OI'FICER

¶39

[r
.llj'!-
&;;$P'"t+I

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud v. Canara 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

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

Pushpa Trading versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sivva Revanth Kumar

Syed Mahmood Mohiuddin versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Rahul Metals