Dismissed

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao v. Axis Bank

DRT11 Nov 2025SA/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged steps taken by the Respondent bank to enforce security interest and take physical possession of mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal examined compliance with statutory notice requirements and procedural mandates under relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there are no merits to warrant interference with the Respondent's lawful possession proceedings.

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE I 1TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

sA.No.O5./2c24

¶6

1.Sri Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o M.Sree Ram Rao, aged 62 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 16 -l l_2L-2, Krishna Tulsi Nagar, Musaram Bagh, Hyderabad-500 036.

¶7

Mrs.Marisetti Gowri Kumari, W/o Sri M.Venkata Krishna Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No. 16-tt-21-2, Krishna Tulsi Nagar, Musaram Bagh, Hyderabad-500 036

¶8

Mr.M.Lakshmi^prasanna Kumar, S/o Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao, Aged 35 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 16- 7t-2t-7, Krishna Tulsi Nagar, Musaram Bagh, Hyderabad-500 036

¶9

. . . Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

AXIS Bank Ltd. D..No.5-2-183/ 184, Modi Square, III floor,R.p. Road, Sec.bad-5000O3.

¶12

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Counse-l for the Applicants : Sn D.L.Kiran prakash
Counsel for the Respondent : . M/ s Lohts Law Associales
',,.
Reserued on : 17.10.2025
Pronounced on
: I 1.1 l.2O2S
Uploaded on ' .:13.1j.2O25
11 tiru ?w
I
. I i:: . .i_: ..j

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

This application is filed by the Applicants 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.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No .2082 /2023 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶18

The 1"t Applicant availed Over Draft facility of Rs.2.50 crores from the Respondent for business purpose and the Applicants No.2&3 are he coapplicants and Applicant No.3 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan. Due to financial crisis, the l"t Applicant could not pay some instalments and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Respondent without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by frling Cr1.M.P.No.2Oa2/23 ot the file of Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner. The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not published in two leading newspapers as prescribed under Rule 8(1)(2) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002. The Respondent bank failed to consider the substantial payments made by the Applicants. The advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.21.12.2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property.. Hence the SA. .r.

¶19

ll^"- d.*s^{-a</sup> The {l;'-^6i$ e\ enying all the adverse allegations made the lst Applicant availed Overdraft facility ,^Hyderabad branch and Applicant No.3 of the schedule property. After}

¶20

availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicants committed default in repalng the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA on 31.07.2020 as per the guidelines of RBI. The Respondent issued demand notice dt.29.OZ.2O2l to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said notice. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.23.09.2O2L and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the said notice was published in Mana Telangana and Business Standard newspapers and also afhxed on the schedule propert5r. Thus the Respondent has fo[owed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. When the Applicants resisted the bank from taking physical possession of the schedule property, the Respondent filed crl'M'P'No'2082 /23 for appointment of advocate commissioner on the file of Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad issued notice dt.2r.r2.2023 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property. Thus, all the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property are as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereudner. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record..

¶22

¶23

nts .haue established ang ualid ground s for initiated by tle Respondent for taking physical through aduo cate commis sioner?

¶24

Po{nt .I\Io.(t}:-

¶25

6' During the course of arguments, Ld. counser for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶26

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appricant No. l availed loan from the Respondent whereas Applicants No.2 &3 are the co-applicants and Applicant No.3 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards securit5r for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues and the roan account was classified as NPA.

¶27

The specihc contention of the Appricants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Appricants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Respondent straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of t].e schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and, Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Appricant and also in for taking pirysical possession of the schedule property /s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶29

In ordgrto ".ril"6r[fi{te"gpir contention, the Respondent encrosed relevant

¶30

dt.29.O7.2021 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. post and the Appricants received the said notice as evidenced by postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. when there was no response from the Applicants to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.23.og.2o2r u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2oo2 a.,d the sent the same to the Appricants through Regd' Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by ttre Bank. The said possession notice was pubrished in Telugu and English 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 filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.

¶31

¶32

L2.

¶33

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned 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 Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing crl.M.P.No.2o82l23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. Id.CMM, Nampalty, Hyderabad after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.21.12.2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property and the Applicants filed copy of the said notice along with th-e-€A So^{'ttre.-s-teps} initiated by the Respondent for taking physical potsession of the ,sctreaule property u/ s l4 of the SARFAESI Act, rt 2002

¶34

the opinion that the no ground warranting

¶35

interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶36

Potnt No.(11)t

¶37

In the result, SA OS|2O24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated. to thc P.S trdnsoibed bA h.er, coftec,teL signed anl pronounced by me in the open court otu thi.s the 1 lth day of Nouembet, 2025).

¶41

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

1 1 Nr:r ?ftfr

¶43

Lt /TRUErcOPY$=*,
asst#-sl#*l'

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Voruganti

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi versus Canara Bank

Idbi Bank versus Ms. Nandibotla Sai Lakshmi Manjusha

State Bank of India versus Mr. Komatireddy Bhoji Reddy

Ismath Saniya versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Shaik Dilshad Begum