Dismissed

Sri Bandi Raghavendra v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT16 Jun 2025SA/22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge to the bank's initiation of possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish current possession or valid tenancy, as his lease term had expired and no physical possession was proven.

What did the court decide?

dismissed the Securitization Application as devoid of merits and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

Sri Bandi Raghavendra versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 6TH DAY OF JUNE ,2C25

¶3

PRESENT.: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.22/ZO2B

¶5

Sri BandiRaghavendra, S/o Yadagiri,

¶6

Agcd 43 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .2-I-461 1 463, Royal Villa, Street No.4, Nallakunta, Hyderabad

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

Ltsank of Maharashtra Rcp. by its Authorized, officer Zonal Office, H.No.4-3..448 to 460 & 465 to 468, lst floor, VinoorthnaPittle's Maj esty, Gopal Bagh, near bank street, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶10

Sri Ratan Pillay, S/o C.pillay, Occ:business,

¶11

R/o H.No .8-2-s98 I Al 9 I A, ASCI Colony, Road No.1O, Banjara hills, Hyderabad-SOO 035.a

¶12

.... Respondents

¶13

Courusel for t Sri K.Kranthi Kumar
Counsel for S ri Di s hit B hatt a charj e e
9"s Exparte
i.rt l:l
N r.iil,,
* 1 6 JUt
g$.
1. This licant u/s.17 of the SARFAEST Act,
#l*"
2002, j?.S.Edtdd;ings initiated by the lstRespondent for
taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the
SARFAEST Act,2oo2 pursuant to the orders of IV Addl.cMM,
Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.176T 122 and to declare the same as illegal
and void.

¶14

sA22/2023

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicantis a tenant of the schedule premises by virtue of Regd. lease deed from Respondent No.2 for a period of five years commencing from 2T.or.2olg. The officials of the 1"r Respondent bank visited the schedure property on 13.0r .2o23and threatened the Applicant to vacate the schedule property on the ground that Respondent No.2 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the loan availed.No demand notice is issued to the applicant and possession notice was also not served on the Applicant and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule propert5r and also published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶17

J.-

¶18

The l"tRespondent bank filed Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicant is not tenant of the schedule property at the time of inspection of the valucr lor ascertaining the value of the schedule property which was in possession of Respondent No.2 and there was no tenant residing at the schedule premises. In view of the default committed by the Respondent No.2 in paying the loan dues, the Bank issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the 5ARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter the l"tRespondent issued possession notice dt.05.09.2022 and the said notice was published in daily newspapers and the said notice was also af{ixed on the schedule property.The applicant is set up by the borrower/mortgagor and the alleged iease deed is fabricated. Hence there are no the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Heard 1 the

¶20

Applicant and Ld. Counsel for No.2 was set exparte. perused

¶21

sA2212023

¶22

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶23

Whether the Applicant is entitled to challenge the proceed.ings

¶24

initiated bg the l"tRespondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule property?

¶25

it) To uhat relieft

¶26

Potnt No.(i):-

¶27

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

¶28

7 ' The Applicant is tenant of the schedule premises by virtue of the lease agreement dL.27.og.20lg. But no document is filed by the Applicant to establish that he is in actuar and physical possession of the schedule property.

¶29

The Applicant is challenging the notice dt.23. r2.2o22 issued by the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.rv cMM, Hyderabad. Along with the sA, the Appricant filed copy of the said notice dt.23.12.2022 issued by the advocate commissioner to the Respondent No.2. However, the said notice was not issued by the advocate commissioner to the Applicant.surprisingly, no SA is filed by the Respondent No.2 herein challenging the said impugned notice. But the Applicant herein filed the SA claiming that he is tenant of the schedule property' material is fired by the Applicant for "r!..,"p \tenancy^{over the schedule} premises by the date of .t, m .)\ the Respondent No.2 in respect of the schedule ;:prope n favo he 1.t Respondent Bank.

¶30

that along with the SA, the Applicant filed of all further proceedings and this Tribunal

¶31

sA22l2O23

¶32

granted conditional stay on 25.01 .2023 but the Applicant failed to comply with the said order granted by this Tribunal. so, the lst Respondent Bank on2g.o3.2o23, took physical possession of the schedule property and on the said date, the Applicant is not inpossession of the schedule premises. Even according to the version of the Applicant, his tenancy is only for a period of five years from 27.O9.2O19 which is already expired.

¶33

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant without establishing his possession in the schedule property, cannot challenge the proceedings initiated by the r"t Respondent Bank as prescribed under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder. so, the Applicant is not entitled to claim any relief in the sA. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the lstRespondent and against the Applicant.

¶34

Point No.(ii):-

¶35

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed as

¶36

devoid of merits.

¶37

t2. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶39

bg her, corrected, signed. and- pronounced" by me in the open court on this the 16tn

¶40

sdl -
(c. coPr CHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE COPY
c'i?:-'#
Lv
DRr.I, HqDERABAD,
^i;.6,#

Sri Bandi Raghavendra v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bandi Raghavendra v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Bank of India versus Bashakarla Mahesh

M S Balaji Poultry Farms versus Bank of Baroda

Santosh Reddy Mamindla versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kanakagalla Narasimha

Hdfc Bank versus Dandugula Venkatesam

Canara Bank versus Anasurya Industries