Dismissed

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

DRT4 Dec 2025SA/234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed the banker's challenge to the bank's physical possession proceedings. It held that valid service and newspaper publication of notices satisfied statutory requirements, and the lack of affixation on the property was not a bar for the borrower. Consequently, the application for quashing was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the physical possession proceedings was dismissed. There were no grounds to interfere with the proceedings.

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.234,/2c24

¶4

Smt.Akula Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No.3-31, Railway Station Road, Yerrupalem, Khammam District.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

And

¶7

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank The Authorized officer APGV Bank, Regional Office, Khammam.

¶8

Cour*el for the Respondent :

¶9

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Si Ch. Venkat Raman Si M.Ashok Kumar :24.10.2O25 :04.12.2025 :04.12.2025

¶12

-:ORDER:.

¶13

This application is Iired by the Appricant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.p.No .27 /23 on the file of Ld.CJM, Khammam and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶14

in the application, in brief, are that:

¶15

/,P ds who availed loan of Rs.9,9O,OOO/- from the :l , Er^{llRtr"app$D+bv} mortgage against the schedule property as $, ,,^{securitytoward$tiiesaid roan and} regurarry paying the instalments. A[ VJ+.q,1 ::g-*fro"^{rz.os2024, advocate commissioner along with the} '\t"OfneihtS ef,j.hln."p"ndent visited the schedule property and handed *i\ .i:a--

¶16

over the copy of the Vacate Notice dt. 12.05.2024 along with demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent Ba,k. without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 through advocate commissioner and so the said proceedings are not legal. The impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and the same was not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

o. The Respondent Bank liled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed Mortgage Term loan of Rs.9,90,000/- from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property. After availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA on 26.O6.2021 in accordance with the guidelines of RBI. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O9.2021 and sent the same to the Applicant. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 15. 12.2021 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. Thus the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule through advocate commissioner and the said advocate ued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule took physical possession of the schedule are no violations and accordingly, Respondent SA.

¶18

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

¶19

Now the points tJ:at arise for consideration are

¶20

i. uttether the Applicant lr;.s establisled. ang ualid grounds for challenging tlte proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of tlte scledule propertA tfuough aduocate commi.ssioner?

¶21

ii. To what relief?

¶22

Polnt ltlo.(if :-

¶23

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

¶24

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect ofthe schedure property towards securit5r for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is ttrat without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without complying with Rule-8,I-1)&(2) 9f_ Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the \gf6o.gd."t^{narr$---foaistrtawav,initiatedproceedingsfor taking physical} rsession of the sc property through advocate commissioner u/s ,: of the SARFAESI and so, the said proceedings are not legal

¶26

W,*.nW

¶27

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have dury folowed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and. Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to ttre Applicant and also in initiating proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶28

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply liled in the SA. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O9 .2021 and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by her signature on the copy of the said demand notice filed by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.l5.l2.2o2r u/s r3(a) of the Act, 2oo2 ard the said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. In fact, the Applicant also filed copy of the said possession notice along with the sA filed by her. However, the Bank failed to lile any material documents to prove that the said possession notice is affixed on the schedule property. But mere non-affixture of the possession notice on the schedule property particularly when the borrower is having knowledge of the possession notice issued by the Respondent, cannot be a ground to challenge the said notice. when the borrower received the possession notice and the said notice is also published in two daily newspapers including one in vernacular language, even if the said notice is not affixed on the secured asset, it cannot be a ground for the borrower as the affixture is meant only for the general public. In this regard, the Hon ble Hlgh Court of Pradesh in M/s Solithro private Limited. Vs, The Debts reportedtn 2018 SCC Online Hgd 188, has held paraigraph is as follows: '":,'...:'

¶29

it mag be noted that Rule 8(1) of tte Rutes of autlnised offi.cer of the secured creditor to 4

¶30

deliuer a possession notice, prepared as nearlg as possible in Appendix-IV to the Rules of 2OO2, to the borrouter and by alfixing it on tlrc outer door or at a conspicuous place of the property. It is not in dispute that the bonower companA receiued tle possession notice dated 04.09.2012. The complaint was that it had not been affixed on tle SA sctedule propertg. Alfixture o..f such possession notice on the outer door or at a conspianous place of the propertg is notice to the public at large. This is clear from the contents of the stahttory format of the possession notice in Appendix_IV to tle Rules of 2OO2. Thereunder, the borrouter in partianlar and tte public in general are cautioned not to deal with the propertg. In such a sifuation, it is not open to the borrouter companA, hauing alreadg receiued fhe possessio n notice dated 04.O9.2012, to complain of failure on tte part of ING Vgsga Bank Limited in affixing the notice on the premises of the secured. assets. If at a , such a grieuance could be projected bg a member of the general public uho dealt uith ttrc seanred assets in ignorance of the possession notice. Such is not the case presently.

¶31

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High court of Andhra^pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt. 15. l2.2o2t u/s l3(4) of the Act,2OO2.

¶32

As per the provisions of section 14 of sARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of ion notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, ttre secured t.-li!qr\to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief

¶33

ipr"TJ^{y"e*iXe)h, ,"*ng physicalpossession of the secured asset. rn} :re instadt case, aftEh \suing demand notice and possession notice to the

¶34

onpp0cdnflEftreqffe t being secured creditor, approached Id.CJM, u/s 14 SARFAESI Act,2OO2 by filing Cr1.M.P.No.2Z 12023

¶35

for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. Ld.cJM, Khammam after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner also taken physical possession of the schedule propert5r on 07.06.2024. So the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶36

so, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶37

Potnt No.(ii)r

¶38

In the result, 5A234 124 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶39

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

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(rylated tg the-P-!-transoibed bg her' conected sbned and pronouncad ba me ift the opetl court on this the 46 d.aa of Decembe\ 2025).

¶42

sdl(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Power Looms Industry

Yara Linga Reddy versus Karnataka Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr Harshul Gupta

Mohammed Ismail versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Mohan Babu Amgoth versus Shriram Finance Limited

Sri Kunal Jain versus Mahesh Bank