Dismissed

Ms Vamsi Filling Station v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Sept 2025SA/258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application challenging the validity of a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The court held that the Respondent bank had scrupulously followed statutory procedures regarding service and publication of notices. Consequently, the application was dismissed as having no merits.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; status quo in respect of the possession notice maintained.

Ms Vamsi Filling Station versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE I 2TH DAYOFSEPTEMBER. 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.25a,/2c24

¶4

M/s Vamshi Filling Station Rep. by its Prop.Smt.Budda Saraswati W/o B.Kanakaiah, Aged 53 years, situated at Sy.No.7 2,7 2 / D, 7 2 / E,E, Bonakal Road, Dhamasalapuram, Khammam District-SO7 OO 1.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

I/ersus State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized oflicer Srinivasa Plaza, D.No.l O-2-4&, 10-2-51A, Ground floor, Beside Over bridge, Mamillagudem, Khammam-50200 1 ... Respondent bank

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Si D.Raghauulu Counsel for Respondent : Smt. Tarangini pisipati

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is filed u/s. r7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the possession Notice d,t.20.O6.2O24 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null..Ciii

¶10

The averments

¶11

f are as follows:

¶12

The Applicant a from the Respondent for development FF against the schedule properties. Due 19, the not pay some instalments

¶13

and the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA illegally. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule properties and the said notice was also not published in two leading newspapers. The Applicant is ready to settle the loan account but the Respondent bank is trying to take physical possession ofthe schedule properties without following the due procedure. Hence the SA.

¶14

The Respondent hled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant after availing loan facilities from the Respondent Bank, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent on 31.O3.2024 and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O4.O4.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the said notice was personally served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.2O.O6.2O24 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and took symbolic possession of the schedule properties. The said notice was affixed on the schedule properties and it was published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in taking possession of the schedule properties. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. tphether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging fhe Possession Notice dt.20.O6.2O24 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule properties?

¶19

ii. To what relief ?

¶20

Point JVo.(ll:-

¶21

During the Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for eir respective versions as stated supra. 12 SEP ?-M

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appricant ava ed various credit facilities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties to secure the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the impugned demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant and the said possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule properties nor published in two leading newspapers and so, the said notice is nul and void.

¶24

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedqre laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and, Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶25

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said

¶26

documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice

¶27

dt.o4.o4.2024 u/s 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 and. the said notice was personally received by the Applicant as evidenced by her signature on the copy of the demand notice filed by the Bank. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent bank issued Possession Notice dt.2o.06.2024 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. In fact, the Applicant filed copy of the said possession notice along with the SA fired by her. The said possession notice was published in Engrish and rerugu daily n copies of paper publication filed bv .flP"l:nt the Respo f ..tine"tsdi+.tit*ice was also affixed on the schedule i. ;' "d!-^{</sup> properties teQ in trrEfu\yies of photographs filed by the}

¶28

Respond S.l Bfff""O{}^{has scrupulously fo[owedRute}

¶29

8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶30

1i. Hence in the circumstances, 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 demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. so, the said possession notice dt.2o.06.2024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule properties is perfectly regal and valid. According$, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶31

Potnt No,(tl)t

¶32

1., In the result, SA2SBl24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶33

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

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Actated to the P.S, transcibed bA lE! cory1q9d, signed and" pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th daA of September, 2025).

¶36

(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

12 STP 71fr

¶38

j','ffi,

¶39

Ms Vamsi Filling Station v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vamsi Filling Station 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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Y.N. Motors

M S Vishal Agri Seeds versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Kannam Nagaraju versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Kapula Kanaparthy Farmers Services Co. Operative Society Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kanakadhara Designs (Opc) Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Aindhri Innovations Pvt. Ltd.