Allowed

T Lalitha Kalyani v. State Bank of India

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal-set aside a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It held that the bank failed to serve the mandatory demand and possession notices or publish them as required by the Act and Rules. Being ex-parte, the bank's absence rendered its compliance unproven. Consequently, the secuitization application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the possession notice dated 20.08.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against the schedule property.

T Lalitha Kalyani versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD ] DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (HonS.), IY.A.

¶3

Securitization Application No. 387 OF 2024

¶4

T. Lalitha Kalyani, W/o.T.Srinivas Aged 52 Years, Occ: House Wife H.No.12-2-38, Hanuman Basthi Bellampalli, Mancheriyal - 503261,

¶5

Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorized Officer State Bank of India Bellampalli Branch, Bazar Road Mancheria I District.

¶8

.... ... Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee Respondent Ex parte

¶10

-:ORDER:-

¶11

The present Securitizatlon Application is filed by the Applicant uls.l7 of the Securltisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside the^possession notice dated 20.08-2025 issued under Sec.13(4) against the^petition schedule^property and without following due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, as illegal, arbitrary and void.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed loan facillties from the respondent. Due to unpredicted loss. Respondent proceeded to issue Sec.13(4) notice against the schedule property. Demand notice,^possession notice were not served, the^{possessionnotice} was not affixed and^published as^per Rules. The respondent^{bank failed} to follow the^procedures contemplated/ffi,S:ct 13(2),¹³⁽⁴⁾ of^the

a^4b""

2ot2

sAt87l2O.24

Act and Rules 8(1) & 8(2)^{of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules,} 2002. Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent^{bank was set ex parte on 07.08'2025 as called} absent and no representation^{despite severaladjournments.}

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant^{reportedno oral arguments.Perused} the written arguments^{filed by applicant and material broughton record'}

¶19

It is the contention^{of applicantthat the respondentfailed to serve} demand notice and^{possession notice under Sec'13(2) and 13(4) of the} Act. As stated supra, respondent^remained ex^{parte to the SA} proceedings and hence no material is available as^{proof of complianceof} procedure of law. Under such circumstances, the contentions^{of applicant} remain unchallenged and accordingly^{SA deservesto be allowed.}

¶20

In the result, the SA is^allowed by^{setting aside the possession} notice dated 20.08.2025 in respect of SA^{scheduleproperty.}

¶21

Consequently, interlocutory applications^{pending, if any, shall} stand disposed of. No order as to^{costs. Communicatea copy of this} order to the^parties concerned and^{upload in the website.}

¶22

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the open court^on this the 23'd day of October, 2025).

¶23

/4M^,n-' ( J,/

¶24

(miesnwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

T Lalitha Kalyani v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Lalitha Kalyani 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

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Venkatesh Palwaya, S/O P Swarajyam