Allowed

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah v. State Bank of India

DRT25 Jul 2025SA/307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Securitisation Application filed by an applicant challenging a possession notice issued by State Bank of India. The court quashed the notice due to the respondent bank's failure to file a reply or justify compliance with the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed by setting aside the impugned possession notice dated 26.05.2023.

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL -^{1 AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.307/2023

¶5

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna, Rep. by his GPA Holder Mr. DommatiSambaiah, S/o D. Narsaiah, aged⁶¹ Years, R/o H.No.2-8-656, Flat No.403, KamakshiTowers, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal-506001.

¶6

.'. APPlicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2.d floor TSRTC Commuter^Amenity Bus Terminal Complex, Koti Hyderabad.

¶9

... Respondent bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

Sri D.Ragharrulu Si S. Arun Kumar

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant filed the^{present SecuritisationApplication u/ s' 17 of} the Securitization and^{ReconstructionofFinancial Assets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2OO2(SARFAESIAct' 2OO2</sup> challenging the Possession^{Noticedt.26.O5.2O23 issued by the} ent bank against the schedule^{propertyand to set aside the} and void.}

¶14

ThEsavermefitst de in the application, in brief,^{are that, the} 2 $pgn"ffi,"if,, ouslng loan of Rs.45 lakhs from^{the Respondentin} ,-l

¶15

¶16

the year 2018 by creating mortgage against the schedule property. Due to covid- 19 pandemic, the Applicant could not pay some instaiments. The Respondent Bank declared the loan account as NpA without following the guidelines of RBI. Thereafter without serving demand notice and possession notice, straightaway, the Respondent Bankis trying to take physical possession of the schedule property. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two daily newspapers nor afhxed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

¶18

Though Sri Arun Kumar, advocate Iiled vakalat on behalf of the Respondent, failed to file their Reply even after availing several opportunities and there was no representation.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶21

Whether the Applicant has establi.shed ang ualid grounds for settirlg aside the impugned possession notice dt.26.05.2023 issued by tLrc Respondent bank?

¶22

ii) To what relief?

¶23

Polnt No.(i)

¶24

The Applicant filed the present SA chalrenging the possession notice dt.26.O5.2023 issued by the Bank against the application schedule property. But, the Respondent who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justiry/ their action filing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove espondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI es framed thereunder while proceeding against the * The Respondent has not evinced any interest in (, tter even after giving several opportunities and failed 2 5 "q1"p1i.,g i9ard o \d. \eMq-#

¶25

to file their Reply^{and materialdocumentsto disprovethe allegations} of the Applicant. In^{the absence of any materialevidence to show that} the Respondenthas duly^{compliedwith the mandatedprovisions of} SARFAESI Act and^{Rules, 2OO2 in issuingpossessionnotice u/s} 13(4) of the Act, I hold that the^{Applicant has made a case for} quashing the measures initiated by the^{Respondentagainst the SA} schedule property under the^{provisions of the SARFAESI Act and} Rules thereunder and as such,^{the SA is liable to be allowed.}

¶26

Potnt No,(ll):-

¶27

7 . In the result, SA 3O7 123 is^{allowed by setting aside the impugned} possession notice dt.26.05.2023 issued^{by the Respondent Bank} against the schedule^{property.However, the RespondentBank is at} liberty to proceed afresh against the^{SA schedule property to recover} their dues by duly following the^{provisions of SARFAESIAct, 2OO2} and Rules thereunder.

¶28

The Interlocutory Applications,^{pendingif any, shall stand disposedof.} No order as to costs.

¶29

g. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the Piuate Secretary, transcribed by her,^{corrected,signed and pronounced bg} me in the open court on this the 2ithdag^{of July,2025).}

¶31

sdl-
(G. GOPICHAND)
{i ,Pi' t PRESIDING OFFICER
t!I*
/i1c4
; rt1 :.srul?us :,'
i4i .. r'ih.,
.%..it ffiPeglsfrar
D.EI./, HYDERA,SAD,
Wll" **{D*:d&
wry

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah 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

State Bank of India versus M/s. Karthikeya Traders

State Bank of India versus Eco Auto Foam Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr. Vishweshwar Rao Gunda

State Bank of India versus M/S. Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Devunuri Ashok

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited