Dismissed

M.Yadagiri v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

DRT1 May 2025SA/323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenged a possession notice issued by a bank without a prior demand notice. The Debts Recovery Tribunal found that the bank had duly served the demand notice and complied with publication requirements, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The application (SA.323/2023) was dismissed as there were no merits due to the bank's adherence to SARFAESI Act procedures.

M.Yadagiri versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1^SI DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

SA.No.323/2C23

¶4

MiddelaYadagiri, S/o late M.Rajaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ:Pvt.Teacher, R/o H.No.3-83/K, Hanuman Nagar, Siddipet-502103. ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Andhra Pradesh GrameenaVikas Bank, Saraswati Nagar, Siddipet, Siddipet District-502 103. Rep. by its Authorized officerby its Authorized officerits Authorized officerAuthorized officer

¶7

Rep. by its Authorized officerby its Authorized officerits Authorized officerAuthorized officer ... Respondent Bank Counsel for the Applicants : Sn ln. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Bank : Sn M.Ashok Kumar

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is filed u/s.l7of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.04.09.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶10

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶11

The Applicant avai hs in the year 2Ol9 and has been repaying the /4sgnrh-ffi o[i .2023, the officials of the Respondent ba &*. ,o S. sch propert5r and tried to take physical po H of[h? rJ^. ffieffi ilnr LULJ p wherein the Applicant is \J rd^ -',h. Rb,,,r,q$

¶12

sA32312023

¶13

running a school under the name and style of Devi SishuMandir and they handed over the copy of the possession notice dt.04.09.2o23 to the Applicant. But without issuing any demand notice, the Respondent bank straightaway issued possession notice and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also not published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant, the loan account has been classified as NPA on 30.04.2022 as per the RBI guidelines and thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.04.0s.2o22 uls l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was duly served on the Applicant. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.04.09.2023 u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was received by Applicant. The Applicant by suppressing the receipt of the demand notice and possession notice, filed the present SA. The Respondent has duly followed 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. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

whether the Applicant has established ana ualid" ground.s for challeruging the Possession Notice dt.04.09.2023 issued. bg the Respondent against v? To uthat relief ?, ,* ffi 0 1 t{AY 2025

¶19

sA32312023

¶20

Polnt.l\Io.(i):-

¶21

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

¶22

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property.

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice, the Respondent bank straightaway issued possession notice and the said possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in newspapers and so, the impugned possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶24

Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 in issuing demand notice and possession notice.

¶25

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank has fited relevant material documents along with the Reply fiIed by them. As per the office copy of the demand notice filed by the Respondent, it is clear that the RespondentBank issueddemand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 on 04.05.2022 and on the said office copy, the Applicant signed as token of receipt of said notice on 06.05.2O22.Thus the demand notice is personally served on theApplicant. So far as possessionnotice is concerne $pplicant^{has admitted the receiptof} the said possession 3 issued by the Respondent. Infact the said po ,ik g with the SA. As per the copies of paper pu lcatl0n"* dent bank, it is clear that n 4 irru ruYr * 01itAYil[s i; W---s$

¶26

sA323/2023

¶27

the Respondent Bank published the said possession notice in daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the bank. Thus, the Bank has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the schedule property and so, the possession notice dt.04.09.2023 is perfectly legal and valid.

¶28

I 1. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicantand there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicant.

¶29

Point No.(ii):-

¶30

In the result, SA 323 /2023 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

(Dictated to the P.S, -transcribed. bg her, corrected., signed. and pronounced. bg me in the open courT on this the l"tdag of Mag, 2025).

¶33

,',ffi<br>iJ olrny2o6 *
W.#

¶34

sd/ - (c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

TRIIE^coPY Assr. hY*rar.LI lc, DI2.T.I,^HYOERABAD.

M.Yadagiri v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yadagiri v. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

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. Sandhya Polymers

State Bank of India versus Mr. Venkateshwarlu Puppala

State Bank of India versus Smt Boga Swaraja Laxmi (Died)

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Aiguille Hotels Inc.

State Bank of India versus Sri.Bharat Singh Rajput

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Sree Enterprises