Dismissed

Sri Kunal Jain v. Mahesh Bank

DRT4 Dec 2025SA/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge to a possession notice issued by the bank. The court held that the bank duly followed the proviso of the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules by issuing a demand notice and complying with publication and affixation requirements before taking possession.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no order as to costs payable.

Sri Kunal Jain versus Mahesh Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

sA.No.2g1,/2c24

¶6

Sri Kunal Jain, S/o Nemi Chand Jain, Aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.8-2 -3lO I Rl 14, Plot No.14, Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-SOO 034.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

A.P. Mahesh Co-Operative Urban bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer 8-2-680ll and 2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.

¶10

A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban bank Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager

¶11

15-7-240 and 241, lst Floor, yadhav Towers, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad-SOOO 12.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for th.e Applicant : Sri S.Venkateshtoarlu Counselfor Respondents : Sri Mettu Sriniuas Reddg

¶14

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶15

:06.11.2025 :04.12.2O25

¶16

:O4.12.2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

is filed u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 )^{challenging the action} of the Respondents in issuing ; 0 rb&B"tdt6Noq 06.07.2024 in respect of the schedule property and as null and void. F, rlL^{to dectare rhg {} \b$,""r!,, WHqIY

¶19

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

¶20

The Applicant availed loan from the 2"a Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property as securit5r towards the said roan. The Respondents without issuing demand notice under section r3(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, straightaway issued impugned possession notice dated 06.07.2024 to the Applicant without following the procedure as prescribed under Rule s(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 and so, said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶21

.). The Respondents Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that Applicant availed Housing Loan of 67 Lakhs from the 2na Respondent and created mortgage against schedule property as security for the said loan. Thereafter, the Applicant failed to repay the outstanding dues and so, the Respondents classilied the roan account of the Applicant as NPA on 10.o9.2019 as per the guidelines of RBL The Respondents issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 on 22.06.2020 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 to the Applicant and guarantors and the same was served on the Appricant. when there was no response from the Applicant to the said demand notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.o6.oz.2024 to the Applicant and the guarantor and the same was sent through Regd. post. The said notice was pubrished in three daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus, the Respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under section 13(a) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 against the schedule property. Accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

fd Ld:"corrnsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondents '^.:._ brought on record.

¶23

for consideration are

¶24

i.. ttletter the Applicant has establisled any ualid grounds for setting asid.e he^possession Notice dt.06.07.2024 issued bg the Respondents against tle schedule propertg?

¶25

ii. To wlnt relief?

¶26

Polnt ilo.(t):-

¶27

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

¶28

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed Housing Loan from the 2"4 Respondent and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA by the Respondents' It is also not in dispute that the Respondents issued possession notice dated 06.02.2024 to the Applicant.

¶29

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without serving demand notice to the Applicant, the Respondents, straightaway issued the impugned possession notice without fonowing the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the .ARFAESI Act 2002 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶30

8' But the Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and the same tygg published in three da,y newspapers and there are no viorations. ..-:-

¶31

?i^{' t''"order to prriae their contentions,the Respondents fired} material {i: 1fi"ii.ir,".1:"if}|r^{the Reply filed by them. As per the said material} docdm"erits, ft is-c$ar that the Respondents issued demand notice liE, d'1-zz'06 '2o2o.to tiv,Applicant and others and the said notice was sent to ;i, "lili, ti,,,, ',^{:;.i. '.'."'} 3 . .'-;u).-'

¶32

through Regd' post as evidenced by the postar track reports liled by the respondents. when the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, tlre Respondents issued possession notice dt.o6.oz.2024 and sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. In fact, the Applicant frled copy of the said possession notice along with the sA which clearly indicates that the Applicant received the said notice. The said possession notice was published in Telugu, Engrish and urdu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondents have scrupurously complied with Rule 8(l)&(2) of securiry Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the secured asset u/s 13(4) of the SARFAES I Act,2OO2 and so, the impugned possession notice dt.06.02.2024 is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.

¶33

Potnt No.(tl)t

¶34

In the result, sA 29L/24 is dismissed as there are no merits in the sA. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

transcribed bg her, conected, signed. and. pronounced by me in the open .\ry._of^{December,2 02 S)}

¶37

sd/-
* (G. coPr CHANDI
lEC rys
OFFICER
ffiffipu;,,

Sri Kunal Jain v. Mahesh Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kunal Jain v. Mahesh Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Power Looms Industry

Yara Linga Reddy versus Karnataka Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr Harshul Gupta

Mohammed Ismail versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Mohan Babu Amgoth versus Shriram Finance Limited