Dismissed

Maddileti Chikkapalli v. Hdfc Bank

DRT6 Nov 2025SA/468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the respondent bank had scrupulously followed statutory procedures for issuing the notices and declaring the account as NPA. The application was rejected for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application challenging the possession notice dated 05.03.2024 was dismissed as there were no merits.

Maddileti Chikkapalli versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.46a./2c23

¶4

Mr.Maddileti Chikkapalti S/o Kistanna Chikkapalli, Aged 60 years, Occ:Govt.^principal R/o Flat No. 104, 1st floor, Nutan's Ramya Apartment, H.No.l6-11-739 lt/8, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer Secured Assets Branch, HDFC Ltd, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad HDFC Bank Ltd., Retail portfolio Management, G2, Ground floor, MSR Block, Krishe Sapphire, Hitech City Main Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad-SoO0 81. .. . Respondent

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn G.]V.S. Chandra Bose Counsel for R : Lofus La u-t Associates :19.09.2O25 :04.1 1.2O25 :O6.1 1 .2O25 04ilSVm5

¶8

¶9

(SARFAESI challenging the Possession Notice dt.OS.O3.2O24 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶10

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶11

The Applicant availed various credit facilities from the Respondent and due to financial crisis, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA illegally. The interest charged by the Respondent is very high. The Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant without following the due procedure. Hence the SA.

¶12

J. The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant after availing various loan facilities from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan accounts were classified as NpA by the Respondent on 04.12.2021 and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O4.O9.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. The said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.Post but the same was returned with endorsement 'no such person'and the Respondent published the said notice in Mana Telangana and Financial Express. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.05.03.2o24 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicant though Regd.post. The said notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking possession of the schedule propert5r. The Respondent complied with RBI guidelines on interest rates and charges. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

¶14

; that are
l,',i.
*
0 { ilol, 2025
?

¶15

whether the Applicant has establistwd ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.05.03.2o24 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶16

ii. To what relief?

¶17

Point ffo.(il:-

¶18

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

¶19

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed various loan facilities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan accounts of the Applicant as NPA.

¶20

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent has not followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and so, said notices are null and void. 9. Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 arrd Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶21

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material with the Reply filed by them. As per the said t the Respondent issued demand notice e SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the said notice at. o {ialiizz- il* r.,';1rr seni to_ the AppliiSnt was with endorsement 'no such person'and said notice in Telugu and English daily t failed to comply with the said demand Possession Notice dt.05.03.2o24 and sent

¶22

¶23

¶24

the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule propert5r as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶25

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. So, the said possession notice dt.05.03.2024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against ttre Applicant.

¶26

Potnt No.(ii)r

¶27

t2. In the result, SA 468/23 is dismissed as there are no merits. 13. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶29

(Dctated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 4th dag of Nouember, 2025).

¶30

sd/-
(G. GOPI CHANDI
04ilot,M

Maddileti Chikkapalli v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddileti Chikkapalli v. Hdfc 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

Srinivasa Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Sharvani Industries versus Union Bank of India

Ksr Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah

M S Vivimed Labs Limited versus State Bank of India

Kothuru Narasimha Rao versus Union Bank of India