Applicants challenged possession notices under S. 13(4) SARFAESI Act as illegal due to alleged lack of demand notice and newspaper publication. Court noted bank procured newspaper copies and deposited photos of notice affixation, finding no procedural violations. Dismissed applicants' petition.
Petition dismissed; order communicated to parties concerned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1STDAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPTCHAND, PRESIDtNG OFFTCER
SA.No.28Ol2023
Gorita Village, Timmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District-509 406.
Gorita Village, Timmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District-SO9 406
... Applicants
Versus
Thimmajipet branch, Mahboobnagar Region, Nagarkurnool Dist.
... Respondents
Counsel for : Sri Abhagsingh Counsel ft ; Sn 7"Sasi Kumar ORDER * * 't 0 1 JUL2C25 I
- led uls.17 of the Securitization and .--o,. 'f,1"4,ono I i c ati o n ncial Assets and Enforcement of Security
I ARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenging the Possession Notices dt. 7.2023 and L3.O7.2023 issued by the Respondent
sA280123
Bank in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The averments made by the Applicants in brief are as follows:
The Applicants are the Legal Heirs of late Nagolu Ramachandra Reddy who is the owner of the schedule property and hedied on 03.06.202r. on 04.1o.2o21, the Respondent bank issued demand notice to the Applicants and the Applicant No.1 got issued a reply dt.o2.ll.2o2l and in response to the said notice, Respondent No.2 issued a cryptic reply on 16.1L.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent bankaffixed copy of the possession notice dt.13.07.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 on the schedule property and the said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and so, the said impugned possession notice is illegal and liable to be set aside. The alleged demand notice dt.14.o2.2023 was not served on the Applicants. Hence the SA.
.).a l'he Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that demand notice dt.14.o2.2o23 was issued to the Applicants who are the LRs of the owner of the schedule property,Mr.LateNagolu Ramachandra Reddy and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers on 03.03.2023. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued possession Notice dt.13.o7.2023 and the said notice was published in Telugu and English dai wspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the thus there are no violations. Accordingly, .o dismiss the SA. ffi
rr44.agol dgt#H rodgt#H roro
gol dgt#H rodgt#H roro Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the ents and e material brought on record.
sA280/23
Point IVo.(if :-
nqtfceis illegail'and be set aside. :l*-ii: ii; o 1 JuL ius)t
sA28O/23
and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants.
sA 280123
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg^ ler, corrected, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in lhe open court on this the 1"t dag oj Jutg, 2O25).'"
sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
k^--ffi
* * 01 JUr. Z6 I
-gk.'dd
TfrUFfrffi 'n*dri&A,b\g
DRT.',HYDERASAD,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicants established valid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.13.07.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank?
To what relief should the Court grant in the absence of violations?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
L.Nagolu Gopal Reddy and Mrs. Ramchandramma
Authorized Officer Union Bank of India
Union Bank of India
SRI GUMMADI GOPTCHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
