Dismissed

Sri Kovuri Bharat v. Bank of Baroda

DRT16 Sept 2025SA/289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the bank's action of taking physical possession of mortgaged property. The Court found the bank complied with Section 13, 14 of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1), 8(2) by issuing proper notices and publishing them. The application was dismissed due to lack of valid grounds.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.289 of 2024 is dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending are closed.

Sri Kovuri Bharat versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(Hons.),M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application N0.289 OF 2024

¶4

Sri Kovuri Bha rat S/o Sri Kovuri Obhya Age 50 years, Occ Business, Male Flat No.103, First Floor Sri Sadan Reka Sadhan Apartment Tanapalli Road, Tirupati-517001

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bank of Baroda 3-32/4, Opp Little Flower School Chittoor Bra nch, Chittur-517002 Rep by its Manager/Authorized Officer

¶8

....ResPondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. T. Vjay Kumar

¶10

Counsel for Respondent : Mr.Trivikram Chitturu

¶11

-: o_B_qEB:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation^Application u/s¹⁷ of the Securitization and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(hereinafter referred} to^as "the Act") to declare action of the^{respondentbank in tryingto take} physical possession of the application schedule property through advocate commissioner appointed in crl^{MP No.120} of^{2024on the} file of learned CMM, Chittoor Court as void and set aside^measures under 13(4) of the Act, 2002.

¶13

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed^housing loan of Rs.18 lakhs from respondent bank. Due to^{financial problems,} he could not pay some instalments. Respondent bank did^not consider request to^grant time to regularize^the acffyndJrldarcd

¶14

Page 2 of4

¶15

SA No.289/2024

¶16

the account against RBI directives. Without^personally serving the demand notice dated 31.01.2024 and possession notice, the respondent bank resorted to take action to take physical possession of the property. Respondent bank failed to follow Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter). Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant availed housing loan of Rs.22 lakhs by executing loan documents and creating equitable mortgage as security and committed default. Hence account became NPA on 28.1t.2O23. The demand notice dated 29.11.2023 for Rs.18,23.031.68 ps issued u/s 13(2) was received by the applicant on 02.72.2023. The amounts paid by him were not sufficient to regularize the account. Possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 03.O2.2O24 which was served on applicant, published in two newspapers and alfixed on secured asset. Thereafter the respondent bank approached the learned CMM Court u/s 14 by filing Crl MP No.120 of 2024 wherein advocate commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured asset. The respondent bank has strictly followed the procedure laid down in the Act and Rules thereunder hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

The right of applicant advancing arguments was forfeited on 01.08.2025 after affording ample opportunity. No written arguments filed even after liberty granted. Respondent reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Perused the same along with material documents placed on record. N.r"lS'

¶19

Pate 3 of4

¶20

5A No.289/2024

¶21

During the course of his arguments, the learned^counsel for^the respondent bank reiterated the version as in the reply^statement. while relying on the documents annexed to the reply^statement, learned counsel said the respondent bank meticulously^{followed the} due^procedure as^prescribed in the Act, 2002 and^{Rules thereunder} and sought for dismlssal of the SA.

¶22

The^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶23

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^{ground to} quash any of the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule^property, as^prayed for?

¶24

ii) To what relieP

¶25

Point No.(i):

¶26

Admittedly the applicant availed housing loan and^committed default. The respondent bank filed sufficient^proof along with^reply statement, as to compliance of Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the Act^and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002, in^{serving demandnotice} dated 29.11.2023,^{possession notice} dated^{03.02.2024, publication of} the same in English and Telugu^newspapers on 09.02.2024^and amxture of^possession notice on schedule^{property. Sec.14of the Act,} 2002 is the provision under which the respondent being^secured creditor took action for taking^{physical possession} of the^secured asset. Such action cannot be termed as^illegal. In fact, the^applicant came up before the Tribunal with false statementsⁱⁿ a^{sworn affidavit} about amount of loan availed, date of demand^{notice and that he did} not receive statutory notices though he _received the^same as^per proof documents fired by the bank. ffitt!*

¶27

PaEe 4 of4

¶28

SA No.289/2024

¶29

It is concluded that^{the applicanthas utterly failed to makeout} any valld^ground to set aside any^of the^{measuresof the respondent} bank under Sec.13(2), 13(4) of the Act, 2002^{read withRules8(1)} and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002 and^{the action to take physical} possession of the SA schedule^property. Accordingly SA^{is liable} to^be dismissed.

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

In the result. the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶32

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Appllcationspending, if any,} shall stand closed.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in the official website.

¶35

(Typed to my dktotion by the PS. conected, signed ond^prcnounced W me in the open court on thb the ld doy of sepbnbeL 2025).

¶36

fun*n lmMesxwan^rorne; PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Kovuri Bharat v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kovuri Bharat v. Bank of Baroda

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 M/S. Nivansh Modulars

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ramesh Paper Plate Supply

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Fareeduddin

Yes Bank versus Nellikanti Lingaiah

Manadala Sriramulu versus Union Bank of India

A Kishore Chowdary versus Union Bank of India