Dismissed

Dudekula Raja Hussain v. Bank of India

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Securitization Application challenging the Respondent Bank's measures for physical possession of mortgaged properties. The Tribunal found compliance with statutory procedure under the Securitization Act, 2002, including proper notice, affixation, and publication.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application failed and was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were closed; no order as to costs.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH^{DAYOF AUGUST, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RA[4ESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com,L LB, (Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.335 OF 2024}

¶5

1,1r. Dudeku la Raja Hussain S/o D Lal Sa,^{Aged about 49} Years Occ:Business, R/o^H.No.6-89 Kothapeta, Palukur,^{Ku rnool} Andhra Pradesh-518176

¶6

...... .Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bank of India O/o Bukkapuram Branch Near Ramalayam Bukkapuram^(V), Mahanandi^(M) Nandyal-518512 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

... ResPondent

¶10

Counsel for the APP|icant : Mr. Kranthi Kumar^Kadari

¶11

Counsel for Respondent^Bank : Mr.K.V. Nageswara^Rao

¶12

-i 9-B-D-E-R:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} 'the Act") assailing the measures^{of the respondentincluding} proposed dispossession of applicant from^{applicationschedule} properties pursuant to advocate commissioner^{notice dated} 01.08.2024 in crt.MP^{No.L69/2024on the flle of learned chief Judicial} Magistrate Cum Principal Assistant^{SessionsJudge, Kurnool}

¶14

The case of the applicant,ⁱⁿ brief,^{is that he availed business} toan of Rs.15 lakhs in 2013 by^{executingloan documentsand} creating mortgage over applicatlon^{schedule- property as security.} 7fi'No,r. "<o U'.-ry"

¶15

Page 2 ofs

¶16

sA No.335/2024

¶17

Due to financial crunch and^{lock down, his businesswentinto losses} resulting in default ln some^{EMIS.Without considering the request to} settle the account, without^serving the^{demandnotice,possession} notice and without affixture and^{publicationof the possession notice,} respondent bank is^proceeding to take^{physicalpossessionof the} property. There is violation of Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the Act,^{2002 and} Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the^{SecurityInterest(Enforcement)Rules,} 2002^("Rules" hereinafter).^{Hence this SA.}

¶18

The respondent bank filed^{replystatement along with} documents. The submissions, briefly, are^{that the applicantis the} proprletor of M/s Madeena Napa Slab Cutting and Works.^{The loan is} secured by guarantees of other two^{persons and mortgageof} application schedule^{properties. The loan account slipped intoNPAon} 21.O3.2023 due to default in repayment. The^{applicantand others} have been duly served with demand^notice and^{possession notlce} vide postal acknowledgements and service^{certificate issued by the} postal authorities. The possession notice was duly affixed on each of the mortgaged property and^published in 'Eenadu' and^'Indian Express' thereby complied with the^{procedure prescribed under} Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act and^Rules 8(1)^and 8(2)^{of the Rules} of 2002. The applicant cannot^challenge the^{measures under Sec.14} before the Tribunal however,^{respondentbank is entitled to proceed} to take^{physical possession.} The SA^{is liable} to^{be dismissed.}

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant reported that orders may be passed based on record. Perused the written arguments filed by. learned counsel for the respondent bank and the material brought on record. 1fu*b

¶20

Pate 3 of 5

¶21

sA No.335/2024

¶22

The^points for consideration^{are as follows : -}

¶23

i) whether the applicant^{made out anY valid ground to} quash the measures of the^{respondent against the} application schedule^{properties as prayed for?}

¶24

ii) To what relief?

¶25

Point No.(i):

¶26

Admittedly the applicant^{committeddefault in paymentand} hence he cannot^{questionthe action of respondentin classifying the} account as^NPA and^{initiating Securitization measures against the} secured assets for^{recovery of dues.As per documentsfiled by the} respondent bank, the^{applicant was served wlth the demand notice} under^personal acknowledgement.^{As per postal confirmationletters} issued by the^{postal authorities,the applicant as well as other two} guarantors/mortgagors were served^{with the demandnotice' The} applicant received the^{possession notice as perpostal} acknowledgement at^{page18 of documents annexedto the reply} statement. One of the^{guarantors/mortgagorsleftwithout} lnstructions and another^{'unclaimed'the notice. The possession} notices dated 02.12.2023^{were affixed on respective securedassets} as^{per photographsand published in Englishand Telugu newspapers} as per copies of^{paper publicationdated 07,L2'2O23Thereaftera} sale notice was atso^{issued on applicantand others. I absolutely do} not find any infraction of^{provisionsunder Secs.13(2) and 13(4)of} the Act and Rules 8(1)^{and 8(2) of Rules, 2002. The respondent bank} being secured creditor is entitled^{under Sec 14 of the Act, 2002to} approach the learned^{CMM/DM seeking appointmentof advocate} commissioner to take^{physicalpossessionof the securedassets l find} no irregularity or illegality^{tn suchaction.} /fl\a.rw ///"*ac'

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

SA No.335/2024

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent bank by relying upon the^judgement of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in G. Anil Chand vs. Authorized Officer,2022 (1) ALT 801 (DB) (TS) and Tulsi Rocks Pvt. Ltd,, Secunderabad & others vs. Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch, Hyderabad & Anr, 2019 (2) D.R.T.C. 314 (Telan.) contended that the SA to challenge the possession notice is barred by limitation and without there being challenge on possession notice, a person cannot challenge Sec.14 proceedings. However, as observed in the preceding paragraph, the respondent amply proved compliance of procedure as prescribed under the Sec.13(2) and 13(4) read with Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002 and hence I find no requirement to go into the issues of limitation or applicant's right to challenge the Sec.14 proceedings.

¶30

B. In view of the above observations, I conclude that the applicant utterly failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent bank under the provisions of the Act, 2002 against the application schedule properties. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Point No.(ii):

¶32