Dismissed

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao v. Axis Bank

DRT12 Nov 2025SA/6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter concerning recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined an application challenging a bank's appointment of an advocate commissioner for physical possession. The court noted strict compliance with notification requirements and confirmed the validity of the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE I ITH DAYOFNOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

sA.No.o6./2e.24

¶3

1.Sri Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o M.Sree Ram Rao, aged 62 yeais, y::;o"",:.::, _R/o H.No. 1 6 - t 1 -2 t -2, Krlshna Tulsi Nagar, Musaram Bagh, Hyderabad-500 036.

¶4

Mrs.Marisetti Siva Rajitha,

¶5

D/o Sri M.Venkata Iiishna Rao,

¶6

fqed^{aO years, Occ:house wife,}

¶7

R/o H.No. t6- tt-21_T [l]:h":^{Tutsi Nalar,ir4usaram Bagh,} Hyderabad-5O0 036

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

And

¶10

AXIS Bank Ltd. D..No.5-2-r83/ 184, Modi Square, III floor,R.p. Road, Sec.bad-500003.

¶11

Rep. by its Authorized oflicer

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : Si D.L.Kiran prakash

¶14

Counsel for the Respond.ent t M/" Lofus Laut Associates

¶15

Reserued on :17.1O.2O25 Pronounced on :11.11.2025 Uploaded on

¶16

:12. 1 1.2O25

¶17

This

¶18

filed by of the SARFAESI Act, the ent for taking of ugh Advocate pally, Hyderabad as illegal and void.

¶19

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

¶20

The l"t Applicant ava,ed over Draft fac,ity of Rs. 1.50 crores from the Respondent for business purpose and the 2.d Applicant is co_applicant and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan. Due to financial crisis, the lst Applicant could not pay some instalments and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. The Respondent without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, straightaway' initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedure propert5r under Section 14 0f the sARFAESI Ac t,2002by frring Crl.M.p.No.20g4/23 on the lile of Ld.CMM, Nampa,y, 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 g(l)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures,2002. The advocate ";-"r;;;;. appointed by the Ld.cMM, Nampalry, Hyderabad visited the schedure propert5r and issued notice dt.2l.1 2-2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property.. Hence the SA.

¶21

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the lst Applicant availed overdraft facility from the Respondent at RAC, Hyderabad branch and Applicant No.2 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. After availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA on 31.07.2020 as per the guiderines of RBL The Respondent issued o:^:mtfrqQros.2o21 to the Applicants and the Appricants

¶22

,^the Respondent issued possession the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post 1 was published in Mana Telangana and and also affixed on the schedule has followed the procedure

¶23

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 physicat possession of the schedure propertjr, the Respondent filed crl'M'P'No.2og4/23 for appointment of advocate commissioner on the file of Ld'cMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physicar possession of the schedure property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.cMM, Nampally, Hyderabad issued notice dt.2r.r2.2o2s to the Appricants to vacate the schedule propert5r. Thus, arl 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,20o2 and Rules made thereudner. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶24

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

¶25

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶26

'^wLrcther the Appticants haue estabtished ang uatid. ground.s for challenging the sfeps initiated bg the Respond.ent for taking phgsical

¶27

possesslon of the schedule propertg through ad.uocate commissioner?

¶28

ii. To what relief?

¶29

Point iVo.(i):-

¶30

During ents, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. iterated their respective versions as stated t. supra. ,ii.,i ,'ifi,t| 21fi

¶31

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant No. 1 availed loan from the Respondent whereas Applicant No.2 is the co_applicant and she created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards securit5r for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repalng the loan dues and the loan account was classified as NpA.

¶32

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures 2002, the Respondent straightaway, 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.

¶33

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have dury followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule

¶34

property /s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶35

10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed rerevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.05.0S.2O21 u/s t3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. post and the Applicants received the said notice as evidenced by postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. When rs.no response from the Applicants to the said demand notice.yfi e nieneryS,rit issued possession notice dt.23.og.2o2 I u/s rs(a) "rdi';'Ad' dooe""Jfu.", ,n;";;;;" the Applicants through Regd. Postt{s€via.n"e&ty the pd3tal t.u"k..po.t" filed by the Bank. The said posse'sion !r{i46ir6ffi[ ;"r.i,.+.;,;";il; i";il"."l; "'*'nun"",';1i,"':,,i..'1,];"*o or paper publication med by the L,fl,i,lF""

¶36

Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedure property as depicted in the copies ofphotographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.

¶37

1 1' As per the provisions of section 14 of sARFAESI Act, 2o02, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, thesecured 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 Id.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing crl'M'p 'No'20g4 /23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.cMM, Nampally, 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 Appricants for vacating the schedule property and the Applicants fired copy of the said notice along with the SA. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/ s 14 0f the sARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶38

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by tlre Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2. Accordingry, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and aeai

¶39

Point

¶40

In the result,

¶41

as there are no merits.

¶42

14' consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶43

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to thp p.S transc:ribed bu her o1 Nou.naer, idiij.-'*-"eea ue 'q" cofteded, sigted and pronounced bg me in the open court onthis the 1lb dag

¶46

sdl(G. coPI Cr{ANDI PRESIDING OTFICET

¶47

oc
; rtil0rlzffi : 4.
{t (.1?z':':":^,

¶48

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

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Voruganti

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi versus Canara Bank

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