Allowed

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar v. State Bank of India

DRT7 Jul 2025SA/8/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application challenging the respondent bank's physical possession of secured property. The tribunal quashed the possession order due to the bank's failure to file a reply or produce evidence of compliance with the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned measures initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are hereby quashed.

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY ,2C.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.8/2c25

¶4

Mr.DudukuPrabhakar, S / o Mr. DudukuSrisailam, Ged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .L I-20-96 I LO2, Rama Rao Apartment, HUDA complex, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-sOO 035.

¶5

Versus State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, RAcPc-Gunfoundry branch, flyderabad.

¶6

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

... Respondent : Sn T. Vijay Kumar : Exparte

¶9

ORDER

¶10

1'he Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the action of the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.llAddl.cJM, Malkajgiri_Medchalin .P.No.94 124 and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶11

made in the application, in brief, are that, the licant a loan of Rs.l5 lakhs from the Respondent but due 0 7^tfl,L m$""tt blems, he could not pay some installments. The : issued demand notice dt.02.09.2023 u/s 13(2) of

¶12

the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 but the same was not served on the Applicant. Thereafter without serving possession notice, the Respondent Bank straightawayobtained orders from the Ld. CJM,Medchal-Malkajgiri for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r and the advocate commissioner visited the schedule propert5r on 04.01.2025 and served a copy of notice dt.04.07.2O25demanding to deliver the physical possession of the schedule propertywithin fourteen days. The Respondent failed to follow Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule propert5r. Hence the SA.

¶13

RespondentBank called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent is set exparte.

¶14

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶15

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶16

i) Whether the Applicant has established ang ualid ground.s for setting aside the measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possesslon of the SA schedule property through A du o c ate C o mmis s io ne r ?

¶17

ii) To what relief?

¶18

Point No.(il

¶19

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the application schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify tlsifagqion by filing Reply and produce necessary material documents

¶20

'4f-''"""-=.+""

¶21

,:l''.*yiFl^{ve,that..theRespondent has strictly followedthe provisions of}

¶22

tf drf^{sn(ffiesltb;,and Rules framed thereunder whileproceedingagainst}

¶23

il *. the bgcured assep. ---, The Respondent has not evinced any interest in I1^!ry' ii,.; 0 eqrBEtBfrthe rhatter even after giving several opportunities and failed i^'lt ---'tt to file their Re-ily'and material documents to disprove the allegations t'\ .a;iJ'

¶24

of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show^that the Respondenthas duly complied with the mandated^provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while^proceeding against the secured asset for taking physical possession u/s 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for^quashing the measures initiated^by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Polnt No.(lllt

¶26

In the result, SA 08/2025 is allowed.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned measures initiated by the^Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Acl, 2OO2 pursuant to the^{orders of} Ld.llAddl.CJM, Medchal-Malkajgiri in Crl.M.P.No.94 124 are^hereby quashed. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to^proceed afresh against the SA schedule^property to recover their dues^{by duly} following the provisions of SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 and Rules} thereunder.

¶28

The Interlocutory Applications,^{pending if any, shall stand disposed of'} No order as to costs.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed bg her, corected, signed.^{and. pronounced bg} me in th.e open court on this the VhdaA of^Julg,2025).

¶31

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

oni-1,^H}?snne'1r

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar v. State Bank of India

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

Kanaparthi Prabhakar Rao versus State Bank of India

Sri Radha Krishna Agro Industries versus Union Bank of India

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Filling Station Others versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

Banoth Ramesh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr Chukka Shashidhar versus Axis Bank