Allowed

Pokkili Murali Kalyan v. State Bank of India

DRT17 Dec 2025SA/238/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice issued by the bank for failure to follow statutory procedures prior to notice issuance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession notice dated 29.04.2025 is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh against the scheduled property following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE I 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.23a./2e.25

¶5

Pokkili Murali Kalyan, S/o^pokkiti Narsaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ:business, Prop: M/s Kalyan Group of Institutions, H.No. l_t_i/ 1 O / 2 / t, Mahalaxmi Colony, Behind SbI' RP Nagar Branch, Armoor post, Nizamabad District_SO3224.

¶6

M/ s Kalyan Group of Constructions A proprietary concern f9n ly 1t9^{erop.pokkiliMurali Kalyan,} S/o Pokkili Narsaiah, A-ged 36 years, occ:business, H.No.1-l-tllo/2/1, Mahalaxmi Colony, Behind SBI RP Nagar Branch, Armoor post, Nizamabad District_503224 . .. Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India Home Loan Centre, Sudarshan Towers, Opp. Degree collge ground, Kamareddy Region_ill. Kamareddy.

¶9

State Bank of India, Armoor branch D.No. 131/78, Mahalaxmi Road, Qnn.^{n.n. Nagar Gate, Armoor} T Nizamabad District_Sos 224. m .p3:."ff"".'#"f 6*fu Armoor Town, ll * Nizambad Districrsos 2{j 1 I lt1t

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respond.ents

¶11

Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶12

Sri V. SetLut Madhaua Rao Sn K.lV.Shastry

¶13

: tt.t2.2O2S : tZ.tt.2O2S :12.12.2025

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicants liled 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 impugned^possession Notice dt.29.0 4.2025 issued by the Respondents against the schedure property and to set aside the sarne as ilregar and void.

¶16

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.73,g3,Og2/- from Respondent No.2. Applicant No.1 also availed Surakha Term loan II to a tune of Rs. 1,78,231/- from Respondent No.2 towards insurance of the Home loan for risk coverage. Applicant No.2 is SME unit rep. by Applicant No. 1 availed Term loan of Rs.49 lakhs from Respondent No.3. Due to covid- 19, the Appricants courd not pay some instalments and the Respondent without following the guidelines of RBI, declared the 10an accounts of the Applicants as NpA. The Respondent No.r issued demand notice dt.24.02.2o25 and in response to the said notice, the Applicants raised objections but the Respondents failed to issue reply to the same. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor aff,ixed on the schedule propert5r and the same was not served on the Applicants. Hence the SA.

¶17

¶18

-.^*-. I^-,:\q- .4. .'1"'-' .^.. .:. ' llr. ..! , e, no^{.fuprqentation} from Respondents even alter - availing .dufficient time and henre their right of filing Reply was , forfeited.^!! -'-; 4 7

¶19

¶20

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶22

i) Whether the Applicants haue established ang uatid grounds for challenging tle impugned possession Notice dt.29.O4.2025 issued. bg the Respondents?

¶23

ii) To u.that relieft

¶24

Polnt No.n)

¶25

The Applicants liled the present SA challenging the impugned Possession Notice dt.29.04.2025 issued by the Respondents for taking possession ofthe schedule property. But, the Respondents who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justig their action by filing Reply and by producing necessary material documents to prove that the Respondents have strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder in issuing possession notice against the secured asset u/s l3(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2. The Respondents have not evinced any interest in contesting the matter though fired caveat. so, it can be inferred that the Respondents are not disputing the version of the Applicants. In the absence of any materiar evidence to show that the Respondents have duly compried with the mgndated provisions of sARFAESI Act and n_"fSl zOoZ,1. issuing possession notice dt.29.o 4.2o2s,I hold that sri^{{pplicantsha'ie made a case} for quashing the measures initiated ,P-*.^{ResponiientS against the SA scheduleproperry} under the

¶26

Potnt No.(tilt

¶27

In the result, SA 23gl2' is allowed. Accordingly the impugned Possession Notice dt.29.04.2025 issued by the Respondents against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duty following the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made 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, transcribed. bg her, conected, signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this tLe n;'daa oi;;;;e;:;b;;;"'

¶31

sd/-
(c. GoPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICEi
)---

¶32

Pokkili Murali Kalyan v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pokkili Murali Kalyan 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 Sri Sridevi Vignatha Granites

Ms Vamsi Furniture World versus State Bank of India

Sri Elapolu Vara Prasad versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anu Enterprises

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Pingili Prathik Reddy