Dismissed

Mangali Jayamma v. Koilkuntla Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT18 Dec 2025SA/248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed an application by a mortgagor wife challenging a bank's possession notice and steps under the SARDARESI Act. The court found valid service of demand and possession notices and held the application failed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; all measures initiated by the respondent bank against the scheduled property were upheld.

Mangali Jayamma versus Koilkuntla Co. Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - JI AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: sH. MMESHWAR Ko. on.srorc'3r"crtim'^{L LB (Hons ), M.A.}

¶3

Securitization Apptication No. 248 OF 2024

¶4

Mrs. Mangali Jayamma H/:, ir"j;#;,ff^{,sari chandrudu,} /o.^25/53ARoja Kunta, t,landyal, Kurnool Dist

¶5

.......Appticant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Koilkunua Co-Operative Bank Ltd tsataji comptex, Nandyal Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. G. prabhakar Sharma

¶10

The present Securitizati u/s. t7 or the securitisation ::.^[::i::ff il":,tl,i::.Tr[::: and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (..Act,, hereinafter for short) to decrare the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank in pursuance of the possession notice dated OS.Of.2024 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002 including taking physical possession oF the appricant schedure property, as ilegar, nu and void and against the provisions of the Act.

¶11

The averments of the application, briefly, are that when the respondent bank officials came to the property on 29.11.2021 at the time oF death of applicant,s husband, she came to know that her husband avaired housing roan from respondent bank. on rurther enquiry she came to know that her husband obtained Rs. 3O,OO,OOO/_ against mortgage of application schedule property as co ateral rv-ul

¶12

Page^{2 of 4}

¶13

sA No.^248/2024

¶14

secu.tv^{and repaid Rs1 6' ?r-oo:i:} ;::::; :::":""'^;T:[I] which^{includesqs 2,500/- b'rc} ,",n"^{,".0""0""t bank has not} Despite^{request t"t} '":,1,^j"a";r,n',,u o".^{The possession notice} furnished^{the insurance} :]:l: il;" o."o"n, but the^{same was not} dated^05.01.2024 l"::i1":J;;;, ;";;;";"", bank^{orriciars came} served^{on applicant} ': "l;,";O;.anding to vacate^{the propertv} war-rant^{under section 14 of} with^{advocates uno pol'll} :]':::;;;tvlithout^{the mandi:"'ll^t t"]:""?"io*0"",} t."n is^{levvins penal} the^{SARFAESi Act' zuvz',} ;, ;;^{reftected in the account and no} interest^{contraryto law' depo'''- ",---'^} ....,.,ndent^{bank failedto} statement^{of account} ':^tTI:Tr;j;; ",,i"^{o", 2002 Hence this} issue^{demand notice under-seu';;;;:;;a"} sA^{schedute propertv.} SA^{to set aside all the measu} 3.^{rhe respondent i:".:r.ff;",'j}J:::J:::J::} documents^{rhe aver:n:::s:l::::;;;j;} iireo on o+.oo.zo24^hence was^{issued on 05 01 2024 n"tt. -:-'::} ^,."",...a.^{Theapplicant's} SA^{is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed} schedule husband^{sri Mangati cna;d;Jo'uuu""o amortgage loan of} Rs.3o,o0,ooo/-^{**r"o ov'Jq,it]ot"'o'tgug" :::"t1"} 0,"-0"^{*,n., n n -":":.:} .L:":':::"fi: T :'i::iii:;'ill; :::":."il^{:::11'"':lil:;;; ;;"" u' p"' 1' suiderines} '''''^{Jzo" leaving'her as legal} The^{applicant'snu'ouno} "'it"i " 13(2)^{of the Act' 2002 for} heir.^{The o"'uno notit" l''nolt} '"tt'on Rs.50,19,000/-^{O"t"O ot''o'o'3 was servedon the applicantby} tti""'"Ogement'^upon 'non-paYment registered^{post vide} '"'o' po"""]on^{notice dateo 05'01'2024and sent by} respondent registered^pott' '"u"0^{puo"'n"o ln it"'n""Line' (English)and 'Sakshi} (Telugu)^{newspap""on-i'o'''o'4besidesaffixingon thesecured} asset,^{therebv complied';i;trRule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security} Interest^{(Enforc"'"nt1' *u'"''} 'OO'^{{t.'"r"inuftffit )T}

¶15

page 3 of 4

¶16

SANo.248/2024

¶17

insurance craim pertains to the property ancr not the person and the same has been informed to the applicant several times. The respondent bank has dury folowed the provisions of the Act hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant reportecl no oral argument but submitted written arguments, Heard the rearned counsel for the respondent bank. perused the written arguments filed by the applicant and the material brought on record.

¶19

5' Learned counser vide his written arguments, whire reiterating the version as in the application contended that, the respondent bank failed to serve demand notice and possession notice, faired to furnish insurance craim detairs, faired to issue prior notice before taking steps for physicar possession. It charged interest irega,y and amounts deposited have not been refrected in the account statement. The account was never declared as NpA. He sought to allow the SA by guashing the entire proceedings of the respondent bank against the application schedule property.

¶20

The points For consideration are as Follows : _

¶21

i) Whether the appticant made out any vatid ground to quash the possession notice dated OS.Ot,ZOZ<-iu;;"e ;; the respondent bank against the ie-icneaub pr;;;rty, ; prayed for?

¶22

ii) To what relief?

¶23

Point No.(i):

¶24

It is not in dispute that the applicant,s husband availed loan facility of Rs.30 rakhs from the respondent bank against mortgage of schedule property as security and defaulted in repayment. 8. Material record produced by the respondent bank amply prove that the demand notice under Sec.13(2) was served on applicant being wife and legal heir of deceased oouo*ffipnowtedged

Page 4 of⁴

sA No. 248/2024

receipt of^{demand notice and hence there is no truth in the} contention^{that she was not served with demandnotice'The} respondent^{bankfiled sufficient proof to show that possession notice} has been^{served on applicant, published in English and Telugu} newspapers^{and affixedon the securedasset' None of the documents} have been^{disputedby the applicants'Consideringthe sufficientproof} placed on record,^{I find no deviation of Rules8(1) and 8(2) of the} Rules,^2002.

¶29

Further, the^{paymentof Rs'2'500/-pertainsto payment} towards^{insurance of mortgagedpropertyand not of the person'} Hence^{insurance policy has no relevanceto the loan account thathas} become^{NPA'Similarly, if the amount deposited is not reflectedin the} account,^{the applicant has to approachthe bank and it cannotbe} expected that^{the Tribunal audit the account'}

¶30

In view^{of the above observations, I hold that the applicant} failed to^{make out any valid ground to set aside the measures} initiated by^{the respondentbank underSARFESI Act against the} application^schedule ProPertY'

¶31

Point No.(ii):

¶32

In the^{result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed'}

¶33

Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending'if any' shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs' Communicate a copy of this order} to the^{parties concernedand upload in the official website'}

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion^{by thePS,corrected,signed ondpronouncedby mein the opencourt on thisthe} ls,h doyof DecembeL2o2s).

¶35

7fl*y4r\ !^| ./ rti*-

¶36

(RAM=SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Mangali Jayamma v. Koilkuntla Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Jayamma v. Koilkuntla Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

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 Maharashtra versus Mr. Bandar Chand Basha

Kontham Padmavathi versus Vardhaman Mahila Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Sri. Avinash Pasumarthi

Ms Om Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises and Others versus Union Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Dara Pragna Prathyusha

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks