Allowed

Patan Ayub Khan v. Axis Bank

DRT22 Sept 2025SA/463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant's securitization application because the respondent bank failed to serve required notices and follow statutory procedures under the SARFAESI Act and Rules before attempting physical possession of the property.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed; possession notice dated 15.11.2024 set aside; interlocutory applications disposed of.

Patan Ayub Khan versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

., rN THE DEBTS REcovERy TRTBUNAL-II o/rornnano

¶2

, DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESI-ry4R KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 463 OF 2024

¶5

Patan Ayub Khan, S/o. p.Rahim Khan Aged 49 Years, Occ: Business .R/o..H.No. 1- LS73-A, Teachers Colony ,Pamidi,^{Ananthapuram,A.p.}

¶6

...... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Axis Bank Limited., Rep by its Authorised Officer D.No.22/t223/A, 1,t Floor, GT Road Nellore, SPSR Nellore District _ 524003.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

1946, Nithin Complex, Saptagiri Circle Subash Road, Ananthapur, A.p _ 515001.

¶11

.......Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Appticant : Mr. T.Sridhar Reddy Respondent : Ex parte

¶13

-:ORDER:-

¶14

1' The present securitization Apprication is fired by the Appricant u/s.L7 0f the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (.,Act,, hereinafter for short) to set aside the proposed action in taking physicar possession of the property through advocate commissioner-notice dated 15.11. 2024 in crr'M'p'No.76/2024 0n the fire of the Hon,bre chief Judiciar Magistrate, Ananthapur, in pursuant to the possession notice under sec 13(4) dated tr'0r'2024 as a'eged under SARFAESI Act, iooz against the apprication schedule property of the appricant by decraring as nu, and void, iregar and arbitra ry

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed loan facilities from the respondent bank. Demand notice, possession notice were not served, the possession notice was not uffir".r-r".rl.,-,1;,;";l}':: "n#fg1-rf;.lgblished^as

¶16

2ol2

¶17

sA46312024

¶18

per Rules. Respondent bank^{obtainedorders from the Hon'ble CJM'} Ananthapur^{in crl.M.P.No.7612024 againstthe scheduleproperty' Ti'le} rarponO"nt^{bank failed to follow the procedurescontemplatedunder} 13(2), 13(4)^{of the Act and Rules 3 and 4 of the Security Interest} (Enforcement)^{Rules, 2002'Hence,this SA'}

¶19

The^{respondent bank was set ex-parte on 25'07'2025as called} absent and^{no representationdespite serviceof notice'}

¶20

Heard the^{Learnedcounsel for applicant'Perused the material} brought^{on record.}

¶21

It^{is the contention of applicantthat the respondent bankfaile-d-to} serve demand^{notice and possession notice underSec'13(2) and 13(4)} of the Act^{and failed to puOfisn and affix the possession notice' The} applicants^{filed memo on 31'01'2025stating that they deposited} Rs.2,00,000/-^{on rf .ri'ZO 24 as per orders dated 27 'll'2024 passedby} this tribunal.^{As stated supra,respondent bank remained exparfe to the} SAproceedingsandn"n.enomaterialisavailableasproofofcompliance of^{procedure of law' Under such circumstances'the contentionsof} applicant^{remainunchallenged and accordingly SA deservesto be} allowed.

¶22

In^{the result, the SA is allowed by setting aside the possession} notice dated^{ll.OL.2024 in respect of SA scheduleproperty'}

¶23

anY, shall 7. Consequently,^{interlocutoryapplicationspending' if} coPY of^this stand disposed^{of. No orderas to costs' Communicatea} order to^{the parties concernedand upload in the website'}

¶24

lTvDcd to mY dictation^{bY thePS, corrected, signedand pronouncedby me in the opencourt on} i11;1;"- r2i^{aavor seltember, 2o2s)'}

¶25

1f'rya*' lnhr#sxwrR-I9-r-!1E-) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Patan Ayub Khan v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patan Ayub Khan v. Axis 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

Similar cases

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Magen Roto Printers

M/S. Uco Bank versus Aurora Scientific and Technological Institute

Union Bank of India versus Mounika Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nadeem Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb