The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice issued by the respondent bank. The court held that the bank complied with statutory requirements for notice issuance and affixation.
Application set aside and dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN'THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-1 AT HYDERABAD
DAI-ED I I-.IIS THE BI DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.467/2024
Kareem Syed,
S/o Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o Flat No.l01, Srinidhi Nilayam, Vandanapuri Colony, Medak-5O2032.
... Applicant
Versus
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondents
Si M.Arun
Sri G.Adian Kiran Raj
o R_D__E8
(SAItl.AI,Sl {r,ct,2OO2J ion Notice dt.O7. 1 1.2024 issued by thc Rcs tS schedule property and to decla rc lhc samc
The Applicant availed loan from the Respondents in December, 2022 and created mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r. Subsequently, the Applicant could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondents declared the loan account as NPA and initiated proceedings under the provisions of SAIIFA!)SI AcL, 2OO2 without following the contemplated procedurc.'lhc Rcspondents issued possession notice dt.07.11.2024 and the said posscssion notice was not published in two leading newspapers and it u,as not affixcd on thc schcdule propcrties. Hence the SA.
.).
Thc Respondcnts filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in thc SA and contcnded that the Applicant having availed loan from thc ltespondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property, committcd dclault in rcpaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand noticc dt. 1a.O7.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the saicl noticc was scnt to thc Applicant through Regd. post and the same was publishcd in English and Telugu daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondcnts issr-rcd posscssion noticc dt.07. I 1.2024 and the said notice rvas reccivcd by thc Applicant. Thc Respondents have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules madc thcreunder in issuing the said possession notice. Accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.
Heard Lcl. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.
Now the points that arise for consideration are
Applicant and Ld. versions as stated
- In ordcr to substantiatc their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material documcnts along n,ith the lteply filed by them. As per the said
documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued Demand notice dt.18.O7.2O24 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the Applicant got retuned the said notice, so, the Respondents publishccl th<-- said demand noticc in English and Telugu daily newspapcrs. So thcrc is valid scrvicc of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.o7. l1.2024 and, sent thc said notic. through t?cgd. I)ost and the said possession notice was received by the Applicant. [n fact, along with the SA, the Applicant himscll lilcd copy of the said possession notice dt.07. 1 | .2024 issued by the Respondcnts. 'rhc said possession notice was published in English and Tcl pers as evidenced by the copies of paper ndents and the said notice was also affixed pictcd in the copies of photographs liled bv espondents have scrupulously followed
Rule 8(1 )&(2) of Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.
Point No.(ii):-
(Dictated to the 1'}.5, trartscribed bg lrcr, cotected, sigrted and pronounced bg me in the open court on lhis lllegtt, daA oJ Selslernber, 2025).
trv's.%,
OFT"I,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established valid grounds challenging the Possession Notice issued against the schedule property under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Respondents duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing the demand and possession notices.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kareem Syed
Unity Small Finance Bank
Gumadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
