Dismissed

Kothamidde Venkataramana v. Hdfc Bank

DRT24 Sept 2025SA/340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a security application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, holding it not maintainable because the notice to take possession issued by the bank did not comply with the formal requirements of Appendix-IV under Section 13(4) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as not maintainable. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, stood closed.

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE^{24THDAYOF SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH,^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB.(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application^{No.340 OF 2024}

¶4

Kothamidde Venkataramana S/o Late Lakshmana Male, 45^{years,Occ: Business} R/o Flat No.4O2,^{4th floor} Sai Raghava^{Towers,Plot No.32} S No.95 & 96,^Madinaguda Serilinga^{m pa} lly,^{Hyderabad-500063}

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

HDFC Bank Ltd 4rh Floor, MSR^{Block, Krishe Sapphire} Hitech City Main^{Road, MadhaPur} Hyderabad, Telangan^{500 081} Rep by its Authorized^Officer

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr.K. Suresh}

¶10

Counsel for^{RespondentBank : Mr'B'Ravindra Reddy}

¶11

-: O-B.D-EB:-

¶12

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitlzation^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of^{SecurityInterestAct,2OO2 (herelnafter referredto as} "the Act") to set^{aside notice to takepossessiondated 3t'07 '2024in} respect of application^{scheduleproperty.}

¶13

The case of the^{applicant,in brief, is that he avalled homeloan} of Rs.44 lakhs in^{2018 repayable in 180 monthly instalments'} Applicant repaid^{Rs.28 lakhs and account is healthy in spite of which} respondent bank^{classifiedthe account as NPAagainst standard} procedure and issued^{Sec.13(2) notice datqq-23'03'-2024'Even after} ,/,/\l*^,,. -6 >

1/'-<*tx

pa8e 2 of3

sA No.340/2024

demand notice he paid substantial amount. Without regularizing the account respondent bank issued possession notice under Sec.13(4) of the Act but not served on applicant, neither published nor pasted on the asset and proceeded to issue notice to take possession. Hence the SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that notice to take possession is not a measure u/s 13(4) hence SA is liable to be rejected. Due to continuous default in payment, account was classified as NpA. A recall notice dated 07.03.2024 was issued. Since applicant did not come forward. demand notice was issued on 23.03.?024 u/s 13(2) of the Act which was served and published in English and Telugu newspapers. Since no payment was received, notice to take possession was issued on 31.O7,2024 which is not a measure under Sec.13(4) of the Act. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused the material documents brought on record.

¶20

The points for consideration are as follows : _

¶21

i) Whether the application is maintainable under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2?

¶22

ii) Whether applicant is entitled to any relief?

¶23

Point No.(i):

¶24

The impugned ntoice i.e., Notice to Take possession of the Secured Assets dated 3L.07,2024 indicates that the authorized officer of the respondent bank demanded the applicant to vacate the premises failing which he will proceed further_,.,by follo-wing due ,,/,,4vw,.. - \v // / t -.'\\l'/^/ /,^r\.v

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

SA No.340/2024

¶27

process of law. It is not a formal notice as^{per Appendix-IVissued} under Sec.13(4) of the^{Act, 2002 and hence SA is liable to be} dismissed as not^{maintainable.}

¶28

Point No.(ii):

¶29

In view of the above^{observation, applicantis not entitledto} any relief.

¶30

B. In the result, the^{Securitization Applicationis dismissed as not} maintainable.

¶31

9^ Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending,if any, shall} stand closed. No order^{as to costs.}

¶32

Communicate a^{copy of this orderto the parties concerned and} upload in the official^website.

¶33

(TypedtomydictotionbythePs,corrected,signedondpronouncedbymeintheopencourtonthis the 24'h doy of September,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶34

, '"'' '

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kothamidde Venkataramana v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothamidde Venkataramana v. Hdfc 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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gurram Penchalaiah

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kazi Tajamul Hussain

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bharat Oil Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gaajula Nagaraju

Sree Mayukha Educational Society versus Hdb Financial Services