Dismissed

Ms Vishal Saree Center v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT4 Sept 2025SA/317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the Applicant challenged the Respondent Bank's Possession Notice, alleging procedural defects in service and publication. The Recording Officer examined the evidence, found that the Demands and Possession notices were properly sent via registered post and published in newspapers as required, and dismissed the application against the Applicant.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. SA No. 317/2023 is dismissed for lack of merits due to adherence to procedural requirements by the Respondent.

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS T'FIE 4'TI1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C,25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA"No.B t7 /2C.23,

¶4

M/s Vishal Saree Centre, I:q^{Uf its prop.Mr.Ankam BabuRao,} S/Oa.Narsimha Ramulu, aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.2-6, Madanapet lload,Rlock- 1, Narsampet, Warangal-506 132.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

DCB Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer 8-2-120 184, 2"a floor, Jyothi Majestic, Banjara Hills, I{yderabad-S00 034..

¶8

... Respondent Bank

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respond.ent

¶10

: Si D.Raghauulu ; Sn C. Viswanath

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act,2002) challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.o2.2023 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶13

bv the Appricanr in brier are as fouows: ,. ,r'#ffii[Bh* ;",;;:;," fr.m,he (* :"[fl$friffi;::]trJ:;,:;: ;. ffi:::."T:.:]::JJ1T: ;;; Wffiffi

¶14

dues and so, the Respondent declared^{the loan account as NPA without} following the RBI guidelines. The Respondent^{failed to follow due process} of law before the issuance of the demand^{notice u/s 13(2)of the SARFAESI} Act, 2OO2. Therealter, the^{Respondentissued possessionnotice} dt.24.O7.2023 to the Applicant and^{the said noticewas not served on the} Applicant. The said^{possession notice was not publishedin two leading} newspapers and itwas not affixed^{on the scheduleproperty. The Applicant} is ready to pay the overdue^{amounts and regularize the loanaccount.} Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent filed their^{Replydenyingall the adverse allegations made} in the SA and contended^{that the Applicant having availed loan facilities} lrom the Respondenl.^Ba nk by^{cre ating mortgageagainstthe schedule} property, committed default in repaying^{the loan dues and so, the loan} account was classified as^{NPA on} 30.01.2023^{Thereafter, the Respondent} issued demand notice dt.21.o3.2O23^{u/s 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act' 2002} and the said notice was duly^{receivedby the Applicant.Thereafter,the} Respondent issued^{possessionnoticedt.24.O7.2023and sent the said} notice to the Applicant through^{Regd.Post and the said notice was aflixed} on the schedule^property and it^{was published in two daily newspapers'} Thus, the Respondent has duly^{followedthe procedurecontemplated} under the provisions of^{SARITAESI AcL,2OO2and Rules made thereunder} in taking possession of the schedule^{property. Accordingly, Respondent} prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel lor the^{Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent'} Perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶17

¶18

Now the points that arise for^{considerationare}

¶19

i. tthether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for
challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.07.2023 issued bg the
6*: against the schedule ProPertA?
*
di$
:,1 ; erffprn :?
'i .-I'- * \ ', a- s_$r,,t.l

¶20

Point No.(il:-

¶21

During the course of arguments,^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicant and Ld'} counsel for the Respondent^{reiteratedtheir respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶22

There is no dispute regarding ttre^{fact that the Applicantavailed loan from} the Respondent and created^{mortgage in respect of the scheduleproperty} to secure the said loan and^{thereafter, the Applicant committed defaultin} repayment of loan dues.

¶23

The specific contention of^{the Applicant is that the Respondentfailed to} serve demand notice on the^{Applicantand the impugned possession} notice was neither affixed on^{the schedulepropertynor publishedin two} Ieading newspapers and^{so, the saidnotice is null and void.}

¶24

Per contra, Respondent contended^{that they have duly followed the} procedure laid down under the^{provisions of SARFAESIAct, 2002 and} Rules made thereunder^{in issuingdemand noticeand possession notice to} the Applicant.

¶25

i0. In order to substantiate their^{contention,the Respondentfiled relevant} material documents along^{with the Reply hled by them. As per the said} documents, it is clear that^{the Respondentissued Demandnotice} dt.21.O3.2O23 and^{sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd'} Post and the same was^{received by the Applicantas evidencedby the postal} acknowledgements filed by^{the Respondent' It is not the case of the} Appiicant that they submitted any^{objectionsin response to the said} demand notice. Thereafter,^{the Respondent issued Possessionnotice} dt.24.O7.2O23 and^{sent the said notice thrughRegd. Postand the said} notice was reccived by th<:^{Applicantas evidencedby the postal} acknowledgcments^{filed blr} thc^{Respondent. 'lhe saidpossession notice} sh and Telugu daily newspapers^{as evidenced by} tion filed by the Respondent^{and the said notice}

¶26

#i" also schedule property as depicted^{in the copies of} e liespondent. Thus, the^{Respondent has}

¶27

scrupulously followed Rule 8( l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶28

I i. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously foliowed 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.24.O7.2023 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answercd in favour of the Rcspondent and against the Applicant.

¶29

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶30

t2. In the result, SA 317 123 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dctated to the P.S, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th daA of September, 2025).

¶33

sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

;,,+_ ., ,
r' i'r"r.;- .S).9,
o@p.'

¶35

Ms Vishal Saree Center v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vishal Saree Center v. Dcb Bank Limited

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

Vaddalapu Rammohan versus State Bank of India

S Jayaram Chowdary versus State Bank of India

M Latha versus State Bank of India

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav