Applicant challenged a possession notice under S. 17 SARFAESI Act, alleging non-compliance with mandatory notice and publication requirements. The Tribunal found the Bank followed the statutory procedure under Sections 13(2)/(4) and Rule 8, dismissing the application.
The Single Application No. 229 of 2023 was dismissed as there were no merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THISTHE 2 1ST DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.229/2o23
... Applicant
Versus
DCB Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer Rlo 8-2-120184, 2"d floor, Jyothi Majestic, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-SOO 034e. ... Respondent bank
Counsel for the Applicants : Sri D.Ragharrulu Counsel for Respondent Bank : Si C. Vishtuanath
ORDER
sA229/23
Respondent bank tried to take physical possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the possession notice dt.26.O5.2O23. But the Respondent Bank failed to issue demand notice or possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule propert5z. Hence the SA.
J.
The Respondent Bank fi1ed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed various loans from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan outstanding dues and so, the loan accountswere classified as NPA on 14.12.2022 as per the RBI guidelines. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 19.12.2022 t:,/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the said notice was served on the Applicant and the said notice was also published in Mana Telangna and Business Standard daily newspapers d1.31.01.2023. As the Applicant did not comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.26.05.2o23 u/s 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was served on the Applicant. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.
To uhat hq
sA229/23
Polnt .ItIo.(i):-
sA 229/23
subsequent tothe issuance of said demand notice, the Applicant paid any amountto the Respondent.In view of the non_compliance of the demand notice, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice d,t.26.O5.2O23 and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also aflixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thus, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Securit5i Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property.
l0 Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulousry folrowed the procedure raid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicantand there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the RespondentBank and against the Applicant.
Polnt No,(tl):-
(Dctated to the court on this the
corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open
.s
E''
*
sd/GOPr CHAND) ING OTFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the possession notice dated 26.05.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank was issued on invalid grounds.
Whether the Respondent Bank complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of the SARFAESI Act for issuing possession and demand notices.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Guduru Sandhya Smitha
DCB Bank Ltd.
Gummadevi Chundaravula
Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
