Dismissed

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank's appeal to a Civil Judge for appointment of an advocate commissioner to take physical possession of mortgaged properties, ruling that the bank followed statutory procedures and the prior order operated as res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The standing application was dismissed as devoid of merits and consequently the pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.367./2c24

¶5

l. Sri Durga Bhavani polymers Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Vadnala Rammohan. Regd. office at H.No.2-7-394, Excise colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal-50600 1.

¶6

Mr.Vadnala Rammohan,

¶7

S/o late V. Narayana, aged 55 years, Occ:business, R/o Flat No..205, 2.d floor, H.No. 1-2-19&20, Emerald park, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶8

Smt. Vadnala Mamatha, W/o Sri V.Rammohan, aged 50 years, Occ:house wife, R/o Flat No..205, 2"d floor, H.No. 1-2-19&20, Emerald park, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

... Applicants

And

Punjab & Sind bank,

Rep. by its Authorized officer Specialized Asset Recovery branch, l"t floor, Metro Estate, Hollywood Footwear Building, main Road, Abids, Hyderabad

¶13

... Respondent
Counsel for Si R. Shrauan Kumar
Counsel for Sn I[.I4 Subbarajaju
Reserued 23ocTzffi o.09.2025
)3.10.2025
Uploaded to s.10.2025

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

1 . This application is filed by the Applicants u/ s. r 7 of the sARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda in Crl.M.P.Nos. 1lO l24,ttt 124,tt2124 &, LlSl24 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶16

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶17

The Applicants availed various credit facilities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties. After availing the loan facilities, the Applicants could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondent classified the loan account as NpA and issued demand notice but the same was not served on the Applicants. Without considering the request of the Applicants for restructure of the loan accounts and without serving possession notice on the Applicants, the Respondent straightway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule properties under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crt.M.p.Nos.1tOl24,tItl24,tt2l24 e ll5l24 for appointment of advocate commissioner without following the procedure. The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule properties and the same was not published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants having availed loan facilities from tlsr#.gtpgndent by creating mortgage in respect of the tr:e toay{a&-bunt ffi clas3ifi,ed.6Ls NPA as per the RBI guidelines and therearfie{ir the Reffindent itqriLA demand notice dt. 11.09.2019 and po"""{tiT,l .,{ti& ilrhflT!.zoi9^:' to the Applicants. challenging the I ll

¶19

¶20

said notices, the Applicants filed SA 213122 and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal on 12.03.2024 holding that the Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. All the contentions made by the Applicants in the present SA are already been addressed by this Tribunal in the previous SA2l3l22. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded further under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule properties. After receipt of the said notices, the Applicants filed the present SA. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing aII the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in proceeding u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule properties. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

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

¶22

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶23

i. whether the Applicants haue establisLrcd ang ualid grounds for challenging the steps initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsicat possession of the schedule properties through aduocate

¶24

iA 2sricTzW :
i:i.f. ^ #'
(&*mW

¶25

Point iVo.(if :-

¶26

During the course of arguments, [d. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶27

There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicants availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule properties and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and the loan account was classified as NPA.

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent without issuing demand notice and possession to the Applicants, straightaway initiated proceedings before the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda for appointment of advocate commissioner and that the advocate commissioner appointed by Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule properties and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶29

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thre Applicants on earlier occasion filed SA 213122 challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent pursuant to the possession notice dt.12.12.2019 issued by the Respondent and the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt. 12.03.2024 after elaborate enquiry.

¶30

In order to su that the Bank has followed the procedure in e^provisions u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2 hfT raqz^' :

¶31

after duly ttid" stdtdtory- notices to the Applicants, the ldd. relevant mqtglal documents along with the Reply .A

¶32

.. ipffiftq:-. -.- , .; t u!-- ?i.!!'

¶33

filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that on earlier occasion, tlle Applicants filed SA 2L3122 before this Tribunal challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent pursuant to the possession notice dt.12.12.2o19 issued by the Respondent. After elaborate enquiry, the said SA was dismissed holding that the Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed u/s l3(2)&13(4) of the SARFAAESI Act,2oo2 in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. So, in the present SA, the Applicants cannot re-agitate about the non-receipt of demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent. The decision of ttris Tribunal in the said SA 213/22 operates as Resj-judicata. No appeal is preferred. by the Applicants against the said order dt. 12.O3.2024 passed by this Tribunal and so, the said order became final and binding on the Applicants.

¶34

¶35

So far as the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under section 14 of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 are concerned, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, ttre secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oO2 by filing Crl.M.P.Nos. 11O124,111124,112124 & tt:sl24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties. Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda after considering the material placed on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner issued notices dt. 1O.O9.2024 to tt-e Applicants for vacating the ?itlb.,.^{So the steps initiated by the Respondent for} of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the tly legal and valid.

¶36

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that sA is devoid of merits. so, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,20o2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶37

Potnt No,(tl)r

¶38

In the result, SA 367 124 is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶39

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Didated. to the P.S transc, ibed bg her, correcte4 soned. and. pronounced, bA me in the open courl on this the 2gd dag of October, 2025).

¶42

sdl(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDIITG OFFICER

¶43

h'
*
2 3 0[r 2U5
.rrt

¶44

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers v. Punjab and Sind 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

Mohd.Basith versus The Agrasen Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.

Om Sri Bhavani Industries versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Dugyala Venkat Rao versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills