Dismissed

Shravya Agencies v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act application, the applicants challenged the bank's steps for physical possession under Section 14 and the auction notice for Schedule Property-II. The Tribunal found the statutory procedure under Sections 13 and Rules 8 was duly followed for possession proceedings. Regarding the auction notice, it held the auction was never held as the property was released upon partial payment

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession proceedings and auction notice was dismissed. Interlocutory applications pending stood disposed of.

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.437,/2023

¶5

l.M/s Shravya Agencies Rep.by its Proprietrix Mrs.Smitha, W/o Mr.K.Bhaskar Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o 9-1-369, Prashanti Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad-S0O 008.

¶6

Mrs.Smitha, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ:business,

¶7

R/o 9-1-369, Prashanti Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad-SO0 008

¶8

Mr.K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o late K.Padma Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ:business R/o 9-1-369, Prashanti Nagar,

¶9

Langer House, Hyderabad-SOO 0O8

¶10

... Applicants

¶11

And

¶12

The Authorized officer Indusind Bank Ltd.

¶13

Regd. Office at24Ol,
General Thimmayya Road,
Cantonment, Pune & -i:t'-..,.,. :-.
IJ Branch Cn OIIICe office at H n.l\O. .No.1-10.No.1-t - I U- - 72 10-72. / Z , .l: .{'d:i.-.,i +ii)'..-i11.,-' {'i1.. I ' -.lJ $. ; '',.-r,'
'..<br>3.d floor, Ashoka Janardhan bnam mr'sbori $ " $ "h.<br>t<br>Begumpet, Sec.bad-Soo 016.
i': 'i" ,fiP qt.$ " U
;
2.TheChiefManaser .;ri 22}tT7g i
Indusind Bank Ltd.
Regd. Office at24Ol, 1\i,if,%,g.
^ Jl
Cantonment, Pune & Qlh",".\tdffi ." r"f$759
ffffif#rffi#^""0' \sh,*"""rl[t
Branch ofhce at H.No.1-1O-72, '\il
3rd floor, Ashoka Janardhan Chambers,
Begumpet, Sec.bad-SOo O 16. ... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for tLre Respondents

¶15

Si J.Narendra Kumar SiV. Dharma Sun

¶16

Reserued on : 1 1.09.2025 Pronounced on :22.10.2025 Uploaded to the uebsite on :23.10.2025

¶17

.:ORDER:-

¶18

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property-I through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.VI Addl. CMM, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No .630 / 23 and also the e Auction Sale Notice dt. 1 6. 1 1.2023 issued by the l"t Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule property-Il on 06.12.2023 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶19

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

¶20

The 1"t Applicant is a partnership firm whereas Applicants No.2&3 are its Proprietrix, borrower and guarantor/ mortgagor respectively. The l"t Applicant availed loan from the Respondents for conducting business. As the Applicant No. 1 sustained loss in the business, they could not repay the loan dues. The Respondents without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without publishing the said notice in newspapers and without affixing the same on the schedule property, straightaway, initiated^proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Cr1.M.P.No.63Ol23 on the file of Ld.M Addl. CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.VI Addl. CMM, Hyderabad issued notice dt. 18. f | .2023 to the Applicants. The l"t Respondent e impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt. 16. 11 ction of the schedule property-Il on 06. Rule 8(5)(6)(7) &9(1) of Security and so, the said notice ted by the Respondents for taking

¶21

physical possession of the schedule property are not legal, valid. Hence the SA.

¶22

.). The Respondents Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants having availed loan from the Respondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classilied as NPA and the Respondents issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2O02 to the Applicants. Thereafter, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.07.01.2022 and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondents approached Ld.VI Addl. CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondents u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 are legal and valid. When the lst Respondent issued sale notice for conducting auction of schedule property-Il, the borrowers approached the bank and paid a sum ofRs. 126.77 lakli,s ar,d the said schedule property-Il is released from mortgage. So, as the impugned auction in resect of schedule Property-Il is not taken place, the relief claimed by the Applicants in respect of the sale notice dt. 16. 1 I .2023 becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

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

¶24

Now the points arise for consideration are

¶25

U) established any ualid grounds for bg the Respondents for taking

¶26

P5,y.ei76"f^{tlql schedulepropertg-I throughaduocate}

¶27

ll. Wletler the Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for challenging tlrc impugned sale notice dt.16.11.2023 issued bg the Respondents in respect of schedule property-IP

¶28

u. To uhat relief?

¶29

Polnts IVo.(il&(iif :-

¶30

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

¶31

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant No.1 availed loan from the Respondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶32

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2OO2, t}re Respondents straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property-I through advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The further contention of the Applicants is that without complying with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, made thereunder, the Respondents issued the impugned Sale Notice dt. 16.1 1.2023 for conducting auction of schedule property-Il and so, the said notice is liable to be set aside.

¶33

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 ard Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and ig.irr^{initiatingsteps for taking physicalpossession of the} schedule iit+.e^{SARFAESIAct, 2oo2. It is further} contended .^{that the impugnedSale Notice} dt. 16.1 1. g auction in respect of schedule property -I is not included in the said sale

¶34

notice but however, the said schedule property-Il is released by the Bank upon payment of Rs.126.77 lakhs made by the borrowers and so, the relief claimed by the Applicants in respect of the said sale notice becomes infructuous.

¶35

In order to substantiate their contention that they have duly followed the procedure in invoking the provisions u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Respondents enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued demand notice dt.26.07.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 to the Applicants. In fact, the Applicants filed copy of the said notice received by them along with the SA filed by them. Thereafter, the Respondents issued possession notice dt. 10.01.2022 uls 13( ) of the Act, 2OO2 and sent the same through Regd.post to the Applicants and others as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondents.. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondents and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondents. Thus the Respondents have duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants and so, the said possession notice dt. 10.01.2022 is perfectly legal and valid.

¶36

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, tlre 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 Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld.vr Addl. "r.Yr,{J$11!1{.-lg(s t+:t *,. SARFAESI. Act, 2oo.2 for. appointment gf 6&oca for taking physical possession of the schedulgi[r6-nerty-1. fl}.VI AddS\t{M, Hyderabad, after considering the materiall grn il {' ' *Pt,6ipiQqffied^{( 'l[1'2F.iJil} qll&cate commissioner and the said advocate co$,r!{issioner i: rt. t t.2o2sto the Applicants ror

¶37

vacating the schedule propert5rJ. So the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property-I u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 are perfectly legal and varid. so far as the impugned Sale Notice dt.16.11.2028 issued by the Respondents in respect of schedule property-Il is concerned, the said sale notice becomes infructuous as no auction was taken place and the said property was released by the bank in favour of the borrowers upon payment of substantial arnounts.

¶38

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r_I u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. These points are answered accordingly.

¶39

Potnt No.(ttl)r

¶40

¶41

In the result, sA 4sz /2o2s is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶42

t4. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶44

bg her' @ftected' signed ond pronounced bv me in the open coutT on this rhe 22 'il:;:f\I":#r,';Srtranscribed

¶45

"rf -'W
l*q. 22t/claffi
I r, '. <br>;,,,4 - .i,
@'-tury

¶46

sd/-
lc. coPr CHAND)
PR"ESIDING OFFICER
As
ORT-r, H:E.KRABAD.

Shravya Agencies v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravya Agencies v. Indusind Bank Limited

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.

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills