Dismissed

Sarvasetty Suresh v. Indian Bank

DRT10 Jun 2025SA/380/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a security realisation application filed by loan applicants challenging a bank's possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the bank followed procedural rules including valid newspaper publication of the demand notice and affirmed the possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The security realisation application was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Sarvasetty Suresh versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE lOrH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

SA.No.38O OF 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Sarvasetty Suresh, s/o S. Satyamalah, aged about 34 years, oc,c: business, male, R/o flat no.2O2, 2no floor,^plot no.s 2,3,4 and 5, Vijaya Nagar colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶6

SmtMrudulaSarvasetty, w/o S. suresh, aged about 32 years,

¶7

oc,c: business, male, R/o flat no.202, 2no floor,^plot no.s 2,3,4 and 5, Vijaya Nagar colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Applicants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Indian Bank, Represented by its authorised Officer, Barkatpura branch, 3-4-499, Near Barkatpurachaman, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 5OO 027.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the parties:

¶12

Counsel for Applicants Shri A. Srinivas

¶13

Respondent Sri T.V.K. Murthy

¶14

OBDER , ...\

¶15

The applicants fi led Sec,u ritisatio n Apptlcitlc under Section 17 of the Secu ritisation and 'Reconstruction ancial Assets and ;? Enforcement OF ity l lntere'sU]gct, 02 challenging the r:i-\ Possession notice da l.S,iQ9.2023issuqg; er SARFAESI Act. Q3+s'i#

¶16

(SA. No.380/2023)

¶17

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶18

The Applicants avaired the roan from the respondent bank, The respondent bank without issuing demand notice straight away issued possession notice dated 05.09.2023 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and some persons visited the schedule property and affixed the possession notice on the schedule property. The said Possession notice was not pubrished in newspapers and it was issued without prior issuance of demand notice. It is contended that the respondent bank faired to affix the impugnecr possession notice dated 05.09.2023 on the outer door of schedule property and also failed to publish the same in newspapers within the stipulated time as per Rule g(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶19

3' The Respondent bank fired repry statement contending that the applicants after availing loan from respondent bank committed defaurt in repaying the roan and so the demand notice was issued under section 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act on LL.06.2o27and the said demand notice was also published in newspapers on 20.Og.2O2l in "Business Standard,, paper and ,,Mana Telangana,, daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondelj-.-bank issued possession notice dated 05.09.2023 anO the.fiid ;iL,." *."E ixed on the schedute property .:, and it was published in newspapen\ ,,,\Thus the respondent bank followed the visions,of SecLlrrty riltfiru.t (Enforcement) Rutes,

¶20

(SA.No.38o/2023)

¶21

2002 in affixing the possession notice. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶23

Now the point for consideration is

¶24

i) whether the Appricants have estabrished any varid grounds for cha'enging the possessac n Notice dated 05.0g.2023 issued by the respondent bankin respect of the schedute property?

¶25

ii) To What Relief?

¶26

point no.i)

¶27

6' The undisputed facts of the case are that the Appricants avaired roan from the respondent bank and thereafter commifted defaurt in repaying the loan. But the contentions of the Applicantsis that the respondent bank without issuing demand notice as contemprated under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, straight away issued possession notice. So the said notice is not legal.

¶28

The contention of the respondent bank is that the respondent issued demand notice dated 11.06 .202L to the applicants and thereafter issued impugned possession notice dated 05.0g. 2023.The respondent bank in !g^establish ihat it has scruputously followed the procedure SARFAESI Act and Rules made there u n der possession notice, enclosed the filed by it. As per the

¶29

(SA.N0.380/2023)

¶30

said documents, it is clear that on 11.06.2021, the respondent bank issued demand notice to the Appricants and the said notice was sent through registered post but the Appricants got returned the said notice. so the respondent bank pubrished the demand notice in newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publications filed by Respondent Bank. So the contentions of the Applicants that the respondent bank has not issued demand notice is not tenable. subsequenuy the Respondent bank issued possession notice dated 05.09.2023 to the Applicants. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the respondent bank, The said possession notice was pubrished in published in newspapers on 20.0g.2021 in ,.Business Standard,, paper and "Mana Telangana,, i.e., English and Telugu daily newspapers. Thus the respondent bank has forowed the procedure raid down in Rule'(1) and (2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures in issuing the possession notice to the Applicants. So the impugned possession Notice dated 05.09.2023 issued by the respondent bank is perfectly legal and valid and it is binding on the Applicants, So I see no ground warranting the interference of this Tribunal with the impugned possession notice dated 05.09.2023 issued by the Respondent ounn..l! *T"jr.R"dute properry. So there are no merits in the SA, hence the ;ArEifuto be dismissed. So this point %'A **** is answered actordingly. i',.. i fi^.":l nx^*i . "'':-.4;/ ru;

¶31

(SA. No.380/2023)

¶32

Point no.ii)

¶33

In the result, SA.3BO/2023 is dismissed.

¶34

B. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed

¶35

of, No order as to costs.

¶36

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the pA, transcribed on this the lotn lune, 2o2s) by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open coutt

¶38

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICEi

¶39

6*,S"<br>f,? €l.i 'i
i l o JUn zrrzs
\J-rq
-,
Rh,,,,""d.$#

Sarvasetty Suresh v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvasetty Suresh v. Indian 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

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Sri Kashpe Srinivas versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Thuralapati Sai Chandra Vardhan

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bheesetti Ramu

Smt Rizwana Begum versus Union Bank of India