Allowed

Smt Dakshiraju Nagamni v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's Securitization Application, holding that the respondent bank failed to follow Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act by not replying to the applicant's objections regarding demand notices before issuing a possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 12.03.2020 against the schedule property.

Smt Dakshiraju Nagamni versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONs.),M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

Securitization^{ApplicationNo} '225^{OF 2022}

¶4

Smt.Dakshiraju^Nagamani w/o sri D. subba^Raju Aged about⁴⁵ Years Occ: Household.^{R/o D.No.3-514} Sri Sathya^{Sai Nilayam SamadhiRoad} 1"t Cross, Puttaparthi,^{Ananthapuramu District} Puttaparthi 515¹³⁴

¶5

... , ...Applica^nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Bank^{of India} Rep by its Authorized^Officer Main Branch,^Puttaparthi AnanthaPuram^District Puttaparthi^{515 134}

¶8

....Respondents.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr. P. Nanda Kishore}

¶10

Counsel for^{RespondentBank : Mr.K.B. Ramanna Dora}

¶11

-:g-B-D-E-B:-

¶12

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitlsation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of^{SecurityInterest Act,2OO2(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to set^{aside the measuresagainstthe applicationschedule} property pursuant to^{possessionnotice dated 12 03'2020, notice} memo dated 13.03.2023^{issuedby the advocate commissionerin} Crl.MP No.23412022^{on the file of learned CJM-Cum-Principal} Sessions ludge,^{Ananthapuramand consequentlyrestorepossession} to the applicant^{and award compensation,/fr)/,,q9} ' (t/ 's\o

¶13

PaBe 2 ot 4

¶14

SA No.22Sl2022

¶15

The case of the applicant, in brief, ts that she availed housing loan of Rs.7 lakhs from erstwhile SBH, now State Bank of India, in the year 2008-2009, and mortgaged the application schedule property as security. Applicant raised objections vide notice dated 27.02.2020 to the demand notice dated OT.OL.ZOZO expressing her inability to pay Rs.6,04,349l-, requesting time to pay overdue amounts, referring regular payments made, questioning rate of interest etc. Without issuing reply to the objections, respondent bank allegedly issued possession notice dated 12.03.2020. Respondent bank capitalized the interest against the law. The mortgage is not legally enforceable. Despite substantial payments and the respondent bank illegally took action to take physical possession. Hence this SA.

¶16

The respondent bank filed reply and additional reply statement denying the adverse averments made in the application. The applicant is a wilful defaulter and the respondent bank is bound to recover the public money. Accordingly it initiated Securitization measures against the mortgaged property stricfly in accordance with law.

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.^perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent bank and also perused the material brought on record.

¶18

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant bank reiterated the averments made in the orig inal and amended application and sought to allow the SA.

¶19

The points for consideration are as follows : _

¶20

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to set aside the action of the respondent bank in t;king symbolic and actual possession of the SA scheduli property pursuant to possession notice dated 12,03,2020 and proceedings under Crl.Mp No.234/2022, as prayed for?

N"e

Page 3 of 4

SANo.225l2022

ii) To what relieQ

Point No.(i):

Admittedly the applicant^{is the borrowerof housing loan of Rs'7} lakhs from erstwhile State^{Bank of Hyderabad, now State Bank of} India/respondent bank^{and created security interest over the} application schedule Property.

¶27

The applicant specifically^{contended that she raisedsome} objections through her^{advocate, to the demand notices dated} 20.ll.2}lg and 07.01.2020^{and the respondent bank failed to issue} reply to the objections. A^{perusalof letter dated 27.02.2020as at} pages 28 and 29 annexed to the application^{revealsthat the applicant} sought clarification as to^{which amount is correct as per the demand} notices dated 20.11.2019^{and 07.01'2020,requested for time to pay} overdue amount, waiver of^{overduerate of interest, costs, expenses} etc. The said letter dated^{27.02.2020was delivered on the} respondent bank on 03.03.2020^{vide postal track report as at page-} 30 annexed to the application.^{However,the respondent bank has not} averred anything in its reply/additional^{reply statementor in the} written arguments or^{placed evidence on record about reply, if any,} issued to the objections. In^{the absence of any pleading or document} evidencing issuance of^{reply to the objectionsto the demandnotice,} it is deemed that the respondent^{bank failed to follow provisionunder} Sec.13(3A) of Act, 2002. Once^{this is not followed, all further} proceedings shall stand vitiated. It appears^{from the record that} consequent upon compliance of^{conditionalorder by the applicant in} this SA,^{physicalpossession} of^{the subject propertyhad not been} ta ken. ffi*

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

SANo.225l2O22

¶30

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant made out a valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated 12.03.2020 against the application schedule property.

¶31

Point No.(ii):

¶32

In the result, the Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 12.03.2020 against the SA schedule property.

¶33

Consequently, interim stay shall stand vacated and the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the Zd day of august, 2025).

¶37

r'_l z^' ,zt!9j.o.1.1r5)b''

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt Dakshiraju Nagamni v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dakshiraju Nagamni 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited