Dismissed

Vangaveeti Nagender v. State Bank of India

DRT3 Mar 2025SA/250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a debtor recovery matter under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined a challenge to a bank's possession notice. The applicant claimed lack of demand notice and improper publication. The bank proved strict adherence to statutory procedures. The Tribunal held the notice valid and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application (SA. No. 250/23) is dismissed as devoid of merits. Pending applications stand to costs.

Vangaveeti Nagender versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.250/2OZB

¶5

VangaveetiNagender S/o V.Srinivasa Rao, Prop. Of M/s Datta Fiiing Station H.No.2-5-336, PSR Road, Opp.APGBB Bank, Khammam-5070O3.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer Stressed Assets Recovery branch, TSRTC, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Flyderabad-sO0 095

¶9

2.Smt.V.Ranga Kumar, W/o V.Nagender, H.No.2-5-336, PSR Road, Opp.APGBB Bank, Khammam-507003. ... Respondents Counsel ; Srl S.M. Hussain Cou ?6\1 : Smt. T.Tarangini Res : Exparte 0 3 ilAH zms 'ii" DER 1. ,n,"reS##H$#id u/s 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financialt,.Aiffi#gta Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging.the action of the 1st Respondent bank in issuing Possession Notice d1.16.06.2023 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the samc as null and void.

¶10

The averments made in the Application in brief are as follows:

¶11

sA2so/23

¶12

The Applicantis the Proprietor of Datta Filling Station and availed loan from the l"t Respondent Bank for which, Respondent No.2 stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. without issuingany demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2, the lstRespondent Bank straightaway issued possession notice dt.16.06.2023 to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property andit was also not published in two daily newspapersand the said notice was not personally served on the Applicant and hence the impugned possession notice is null and void. Hence the SA.

¶13

¶14

The I "tRespondent Bank filed their Reply clenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant after availing loan for business purpose from the l^{stRespondent,} committed default in repaying the loan amounts and the loan account was classilied as NPA on 29.08.2022. The lslRespondent Bank filed O.A.No.404/22 for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.90,93,8691- and the said OA was allowed by this Tribunal. Thereafter the l"t Respondent bank issued demand notice dt.08.O9.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 to the Applicant and Respondent No.2 and they received the said notice.. tsut the Applicant failed to complv with thc said demand notice and so, the l"tRespondent Bank issued possession notice dt.16.06.2023 for taking symbolic possession of the schedule property.The Applicant received the said notice and the same was published in Financial Express and Mana Telangana daily newspapers on 18.06.2023 and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus, thc l "tllcspondent tsank has followed the procedure contemplated under the Rule 8(1)&(2)of Security

¶15

t) RuleS, 2OO2 in proceeding under Section 13(4) of 2OO2 against the schedule property. Accordingly

¶16

@ay"a t SNlISS

¶17

sA2s0/23

¶18

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the lstRespondent bank whereas the 2nd Respondent was set exparte.

¶19

Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

l. uhether the Applicant has estabrished. ana uatid. ground.s for challenging the Possession Notice dt. t 6.06.2023 lssued by the l"tRespondent Bank against the sched.ule property?

¶22

lt. To what relief ?

¶23

Point JVo.(if :

¶24

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

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed 1oan from l"tRespondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repayment ol loan amounts due whereas 2,d Respondent stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the l"tRespondent Bank without issuing demand notice to the Applicant, straightaway issued possession notice, and the said possession notice was not published in two leadi gr affixed on the schedule property and the said l,^.'li' ffi;^{ilffi"ffiT;1"*::inI',1.,J,,":r;:i:i:;} the fu1qcea0.3 lldndery undpii the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and nutds.:Eade thereunatt i" issuiing demand notice and possession notice nt and Respondent No.2.

¶27

sA2s0/23

¶28

In support of their contentions, the l"tRespondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the l"tRespondent Bank issued demand notice dt.08.09.2022 to the Applicant and Respondent No.2 and the^said notice was received by them as evidenced by the^postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. It is not the case of the Applicant that that they submitted any objections to the said demand notice.^So, the lstRespondent bank issued Possession Notice dt.16.06.2023 under Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for taking symbolic possession of the schedule property and the said notice^{was sent} to the Applicant and Respondent No.2 and they received the^{said notice as} evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the^{bank. The said} possession notice was published in Telugu and English dailv newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the^{paper publication filed by the Bank and} copy of the said notice was also affixed on the^{schedulepropertyas} depicted in the photographs filed by the l"tRespondent^{Bank.Hence in} the circumstances, it is quite clear that the^{lstRespondent Bankhas} scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the^provisionsof SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in^{issuing demand} notice and possession notice to the Applicant and so, the^{said possession} notice dt.16.06.2023 is perfectly legal and valid.^{Accordingly,this point is} answered in favour of the l"tRespondent^{Bank and againstthe} Applicant,

¶29

Point No.(ii):-

¶30

10.1n 12023^{is dismissed as devoid of merits.} tly, t rlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall^stand to costs. :^{o'rg"firntzdlto'Y}

¶31

sA2sol23

¶32

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected", signed. and. pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3ddaA of March, 2025)

¶34

sd/ - (G. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

TRUE^COPY

¶36

;1"ffi1

¶37

Vangaveeti Nagender v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vangaveeti Nagender 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pati Satya Narayana Reddy versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Shaik Abdul Aleem versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gudilla Babu versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Narra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Polymers versus Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.