Dismissed

Shaik Abdul Rahim v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by an applicant against a bank. The applicant challenged the bank's attempt to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The Tribunal held the application was barred by res judicata as similar issues were addressed in a dismissed earlier application and allowed the bank's action under Section 14 of the Act, noting the a

What did the court decide?

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

Shaik Abdul Rahim versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26T8 DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com, L.LB. (Hons.), t4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.359 OF 2023

¶5

Shaik Abdul Rahim S/o S. Rasool Aged about 35 years d. No.14171 1- 1-3- 1 Naksha Street, Kadapa YSR Kadapa Dist.

¶6

versus

¶7

A,Plicant'

¶8

State Bank of India Rep by its Branch Officer Yerra mukka palli Branch YSR Kadapa District

¶9

The Authorized Officer State Bank of Ind ia Yerra mu kkapalli Branch YSR Kadapa District

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Vikram

¶12

Counsel for Respondent I & 2 Bank : Mr.Hari Prasad Podila

¶13

-:ORDERi-

¶14

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare the action of the respondent bank in trying to take physical possession pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 18.08.2023 in crl.MP No.702/2021 on the file of learned Chief r ud icia I Mas istrate cu m^pri ncipa I o..,',, Kada^pa.

zfxf*Jdse,

Page 2 of3

sA No'3s9/2023

The case^{of the applicant, in brief is that he availed a loan from} respondent^{bank by mortgaglngthe scheduleproperty Thoughhe} had been^{regularly payingthe monthlyinstalment' the advocate} commissioner^{issuedvacate notice' Whiledoingso' the respondent} bank failed^{to follow provisions of the Act Hence this SA'}

¶19

The^{respondentbank filed replystatementalongwith} documents.^{The submissions,briefly, are that the SA is not} maintainable^{on the sole ground that the order passedin Crl'MP} cannotbecalledinquestionbeforetheTribunal.Theapplicantearlier fled SA 1397/2017^{which was dismissedon merits on 01 11 2022' In} this SA, applicant^{is protracting the litigationby payinga mereRs 4} lakhs towards compliance^{ofconditional order against total} outstanding^{of more than Rs.35 lakhs Hence SA is liable to be} dlsmissed.

¶20

The right of applicant^{advanclngarguments wasforfeltedon} 77.07.2025^{and no writtenarguments filed despite opportunity given'} Heard learned^{counsel for the respondentbank and perused the} material brought^{on record.}

¶21

The^points for^{considerationare as follows: -}

¶22

i) Whether the^{applicant made out any valid groundto} quash the action of respondent^{bankin taking physical} possession of the application^{schedule properties as}

¶23

praYed for?

¶24

ii) To what relieQ

¶25

Point No.(i):

¶26

Nowhere in the application^{had the applicant broughtout the} fact of dismissal of earlier^{SA No.139712017.The said SAwas} dismissed on merits vide order^{dated01.11.:2022 upholdingthe} ffirt'

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

SA No.3s9/2023

¶29

actionoftherespondentbankinissuingpossessionnotice.The averments on^{NPA, interest rate etc', havesince been addressedin} SA No.1397/2017^{vide paragraphs 12 and 13 and hence the same} issues cannot^{be pleaded once again'}

¶30

The respondent^{bank being securedcreditor, is entitledunder} Sec.14 of the Act,^{2002 to approach learned CMM/DM to get an} advocate commissioner^{appointed for taking physicalpossession of} the secured asset.^{Hence there is no illegalityor irregularity in such} action. The^{applicant utterlyfailed to make out any valid ground to} set aside the measures^{of the respondent bank againstthe} application schedule^{property.Accordingly SA is liable tobe} dismissed.

¶31

Point No.(ii):

¶32

B. In the result,^{the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applications pending, if any, shall} stand closed.^{No orderas to costs.}

¶34

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official^website'

¶35

(Typed to my dictotion by the^{PS,corrected,signedond pronouncedby mein theopencourt on this} the z{ doy ol^{august,2025).}

¶36

r^wu (RAfiiESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Shaik Abdul Rahim v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Rahim 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited