Dismissed

Om Sri Bhavani Industries v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT21 Oct 2025SA/368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application, filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenged the secured creditor's steps to take physical possession via an advocate commissioner. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, relying on res judicata from a dismissed prior application where procedure was upheld, found no merits in the current challenge.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was dismissed as there were no merits.

Om Sri Bhavani Industries versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2'I^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.36a,/2024

¶5

Om Sri Bhavani Industries Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Vadnala Rammohan, Regd.office at H.No.2-7-394, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal-506 OO1.

¶6

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

¶7

Smt.Vadnala Mamatha, S/o Mr.Vadnala Rammohan, Occ:house wife, aged 50 years, R/o Flat No.2O5, 2"d floor, H.No. 1-2-19&20, Emerald park, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad

¶8

. .. Applicants

¶9

And

¶10

Punjab & Sind Bank Rep. by its Authorized officer Specialized Asset Recovery Branch, lst floor, Metro Estate,

¶11

Holly'wood Footwear Building, Main Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Si R. Shrauan Kumar Counsel for tLe Smt. N.V. Subba Raju

¶14

10.09.2025 21.10.2025 1.10.2025

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

This application is Iiled by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taling physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Kamareddy in Crl.M.P.Nos.l13124 &, ll4l24 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶17

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

¶18

The Applicants availed various credit facilities from the Respondent. 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 serving possession notice on the Applicants and without publishing the same in two leading newspapers and without affixing the same on the schedule property, the Respondent straightway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filirrg Crl.M. P. No. 1 I 3 /24e,114 I 24 for appointment of advocate commissioner without following the procedure. Hence the SA.

¶19

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants having availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA and thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. notices, the Applicants filed SA 214 122 and the this Tribunal on 12.03.2024. Thereafter, the Rii*pond er under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, fdt appointment of advocate commissioner for _sARFrc9sl taking ph1 of the schedule propert5r and the advocate 2

¶20

commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Kamareddy issued notice dt.lO.O9.2O24 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in proceeding u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. 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. uhether tle Applicants haue establi.shed ang ualid grounds for challenging the steps initiated bg th.e Respondent for taking phgsical possession o/ th.e sch.edule propertA through aduocate commissioner?

¶24

ii. To uthat relief?

¶25

Point.ilIo.(i):-

¶26

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

¶27

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicants availed loan facilities in repaying the loan dues and the loan

¶28

to the Applicants, straightaway Kamareddy for appointment of

¶29

advocate commissioner and that the advocate commissioner appointed by Ld.CJM, Kamareddy issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶30

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 ls 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. The Applicants on earlier occasion liled SA 214122 challenging the^possession notice dtl2.l2.2}l9 issued by the Respondent and the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt. 12.O3.2024 after elaborate enquiry.

¶31

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply Iiled by them. As^per the said material documents, it is clear that on earlier occasion, the Applicants filed SA 214122 before this Tribunal challenging the steps initiated by^the Respondent pursuant to the possession notice dt.l2.l2.2OI9^{issued by the} Respondent. After elaborate enquiry, the said SA was dismissed holding that the Respondent has followed the^procedure u/s^{13(2)&13(4)of the} SARFAAESI Act,2OO2 in issuing demand notice^{and possessionnotice to} the Applicants. So, in the^present SA, the Applicants^{cannot 16-ngrtate} about the non-receipt of demand notice and^{possessionnotice issued by} the Respondent. The decision of this Tribunal in the said^{SA 214122} operates as Resj-judicata.

¶32

so far as the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 14 of SARFAESI concerned, after issuance of^possession notice u/s 13({)x Act,2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to ict Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate of the secured asset. In the instant case,

¶33

after ilsuirft^(effiffitice possession notice to the Applicants, the 4

¶34

Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Kamareddy u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.p.No. 1t3l24elt4/24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Kamareddy after considering the material placed on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.l0.O9.2024 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule propert5r. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶35

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, ttris point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶36

Polnt No,(tl)r

¶37

In the result, SA 368/24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

{,f 'W -U, bg t@r, cofieded, signed and pronounced bg me i^ the opetu court on this the 21d
sdl-
X fi:Wry
; :-lon?w As
ir'/nf RrtE/lr, (G. GOPr CHATTD)
PR.ESIDING OT'T'ICER
,--6

Om Sri Bhavani Industries v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sri Bhavani Industries 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Sree Krishna Tractors

Canara Bank versus Sri. Rishikanth Varma

Ganneboina Vanitha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Dugyala Venkat Rao versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Ms Bhaskara Enterprises versus Union Bank of India

Sri Udaygiri Muralidhar versus State Bank of India