Dismissed

chitha mallikarjuna v. 22

DRT15 Oct 2025SA/411/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by a guarantor seeking to set aside a possession notice issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the notice was properly served and published, and the applicant failed to establish valid grounds to quash it, upholding the bank's right to enforce security. The application was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, and pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed.

chitha mallikarjuna versus 22 — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERAAAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.411 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Chintha lyallikarjuna S/o Mr. C. Satyanarayana Aged 46 years, Occ:Business R/o D. No.13-26, Vadlapatem Street Tadipatri, Anantapur Dist. 515411 (guarantor)

¶6

... ....Applica nt.

¶7

VerSUs

¶8

Ba nk of Baroda Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

Dharmavaram Branch, D. No.12l 1O 1/ 1- 10 R.S. Road, Dharmavaram 515671 Andhra Pradesh

¶10

M/s Sri Jagadeeswara Cotton & Silk Twisting and Dyeing Unit (Borrower) D. No.4- 1176, Sh iva nagar Dharamavaram 515671, Ap Rep by Neeluri Kalavathi

¶11

Mrs. Neeluri Kalavathi (Co-Borrower) Wo^{N. Vijay Kumar,} Aged Major Occ:Proprietor, D. No,9-293- 1 Gandhinagar, Dharmavaram 51567 l, Ap

¶12

[4r. Mekala Vijay Krishna S/o lvl. Ramadasu Aged Major, Occ:Business D. No.7-52, Ga ndhinaga r Dharmavaram 51567 7, AP (Guarantor)

¶13

(R-2 to R-4 are proforma parties)

¶14

....Respondents.

¶15

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Arunn Marripeddi

¶16

Counsel for 7st Respondent : M/s Trivikram Chjtturu Yt*Lb

Page 2 of4

sA No'411/2024

-: Q-B-LE-B:-

The Applicant^{filed the present Securltisation Appllcationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement^{of SecurityInterest Act,2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as} 'the Act') to set aside^{the possessionnotice dated73 '09 '2024} against the^{applicationscheduleproperty'}

¶21

The case of the^{applicant, in brief, is that he stood as guarantor} for the loan availed^{by respondents2 and 3 from1't respondent bank} and mortgaged^{his property as security.Heavy losses on account of} Covid-19 the^{account causedNPA classiflcation.Respondentbank} without serving,^{publishingand affixingthe demand noticedated} 03.08.2021^{proceeded to lssue possessionnotice dated 13 09 2024} but not served and^{affixed on property. The market value of the} property is around Rs.1.2 crores^{wheTeasoutstandingis about} Rs.54.58 lakhs. There^{is another mortgaged property and respondent} ought to have^{proceededagainst the same.The respondentbank} failed to follow Secs.13(2), 13(4)^{of the Act read with Rules 3 and} 8(1) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002.Hence the SA.}

¶22

The 1"r respondent filed reply statement^{stating, mfer alia,lhal} since the account became^NPA on^{25.11.2020respondentbank} issued demand notlce and^possession notice.^{The applicant along with} others already SA No,24612027 challenging the demand^notice, possession notice and Rule 8(6) notice and the same was dlsmissed. Hence applicant cannot dispute the same under the^principle of res judicata. The fresh possession notice has been issued with abundant caution since the earlier^possession notice was nearly three^years old. The possession notice was personally received the possession notice on t3.09.2024, notice was affixed on secured asserffiBs getting it

/'4''o'-

Page 3 of4

SANo.4ttl2o24

published on 19.09.2024 as per Rules. The e-auction in respect^of properties of applicant and the 4th respondent^pursuant to sale^notice dated 20.06.2024 failed and respondent^{bank is at liberty to proceed} against the secured assets for^recovery of^{dues, The OA filed by the} bank was allowed on 20.01,2025.

¶27

Both the learned counsel no oral arguments but^{filed written} arguments. Perused the same along^{with the materialdocuments} placed on record.

¶28

The points for consideration are as follows^: -

¶29

i) Whether the applicant made out^{any valid ground to set} aside the^possession notice dated^{13.09.2024against the} SA schedule^property under the^{Act, 2002,as prayed for?}

¶30

ii) To what relieP

¶31

Point No.(i):

¶32

A^perusal of copy of order^{placedon record by the respondent} bank in SA No.24612021 shows^{that the applicantalong with} borrower and other^{guarantors/mortgagors challenged the demand} notice,^possession notice and^Rule 8(6)^{notice and said SA was} dismissed vide order dated^{14.05.2024. ln the absenceof Appeal,it} attained finality hence the applicant^{cannot question the demand} notice once again. As far as challenge^{on possessionnoticeis} concerned, as the respondent bank^{issued fresh possessionnotice} dated 13.09.2024 as an abundant^{caution, the service of the same} can be examined. The copy of^{possession notice placed on record} bears the signature of the^{applicantwith date and the possession} notice was affixed on the subject^{property besidesbeing published} 'rhe Hans India' and 'sakshi' Enslish uno ,"runur/ru,o:LE^on

¶33

Page 4 of4

¶34

SANo.4l 2024

¶35

79.09.2024. There is absolutely no violation of Sec.13(4) and Rules I (1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002.

¶36

Admittedly there is default in repayment and hence account became NPA. Being the secured credltor, the respondent bank is entitled to proceed against any or all the secured assets for recovery of dues.

¶37

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to establish any valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated 73.09.2024 and accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending. if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the omcial website.

¶43

(Typed to ny dictotion by the PS, cofiected, siqned ohd pronounced by me in the open court oh this the 1! doy ol octobeL 2025)-

¶44

Dw** lruMesxwan^xorxe; PRESIDING OFFICER

chitha mallikarjuna v. 22

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

chitha mallikarjuna v. 22

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 Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shashikanth Badri Meenaiah

Bank of India versus Sri Adepu Varun Kumar, S/O Adepu Rajaram

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Mr Gandi Bhargav Goud versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited