Dismissed

Kalla Rajeshwari v. South Indian Bank

DRT24 Sept 2025SA/491/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant sought to set aside a possession notice issued by the bank. The court rejected the application, finding that the bank had been fraudulently availed of a housing loan and had duly followed statutory procedures for demanding dues and taking possession of the secured asset.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application fails and is dismissed; consequently, pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.491 OF 2023

¶5

Kalla Rajeshwari S/o late K. Venkata Rao Age 45 years, Occ. Buslness Gender Female, R/o KRB Nagar Kukatpally, Hydera bad

¶6

... ....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

South Ind ia n Bank Rep by its Authorized Officer Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad And a lso at Hyderabad Regiona I Office Chal Complex, Gunrock Enclave Sikh Village, Diamond Point Secunderabad.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Viay Kumar

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mrs.Ch. Laxmi Chaya

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside the possession notice dated 02.11.2023 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002 against the application schedule property.

¶13

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that she availed^housing loan of Rs.36 lakhs from the respondent bankⁱⁿ the^{year 2018 which} is repayable in 20^years. In spite of^{regularand substantlal payment} of Rs.17 lakhs till date, her account^was iili..tlfi:g^{as NPAand} '-

¶14

Page 2 of4

¶15

sA No.491/2023

¶16

demand notice was^{issuedon 05.08.2023'Without givingany} response, respondent bank^{published the possessionnoticedated} 0?..71.2023 which^{was never served on applicant or guarantors'} Respondent bank failed to^{follow Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of Security} Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules,2002 ("Rules"hereinafter).Hence this} SA.

¶17

The respondent bank^{filed replystatementalongwith} documents. The^contents briefly,^{are that applicant and her brother} availed housing loan against^{mortgage of applicationschedule} property based on forged and fabricated IT^{Returns for AY 2017-18} and a fake No Dues^{Certificate said to be issuedby HDBFinancial} Services. A^police complaint^{was also lodged against the fraud. The} account came to^classified as^{fraud and also NPA on 20.07.2023} followed by issuance of demand^{noticedated 05.08.2023whichwas} served on applicant on 01.09.2023.^{After expiry of statutory time and} in the absence of any^{objections,possession noticewas issuedon} 02.77.2023 u/s 13(4) of the^{Act, sent the same to the applicant by} RPAD,^published in^{'TheHans India'and 'Velugu'Englishand Telugu} newspapers on 07.7f .2023 and also^{got affixed on the securedasset.} The outstanding is more than^20% of^{principaland interest henceno} exemption can be claimed under Sec.31^{J of the Act. The SA is liable} to be dismissed.

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.^Thelearned counsel for the respondent bank reported no oral arguments.^Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent bank and the material documents brought on record. ffix>2

¶19

Page 3 of4

¶20

SA No.491/2023

¶21

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for applicant reiterated the version as in the application and^{prayed to} allow the SA.

¶22

The^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶23

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^ground to quash the possession notice dated 02.11.2023 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule^{property as} prayed for?

¶24

ii) To what relief?

¶25

Point No,(i):

¶26

As^per respondent bank, the applicant availed the^housingloan based on fabricated IT returns and No^Dues Certificate of^another creditor and a^police complaint has also^{been lodgedto this effect.} This fact is not denied by the applicant and^{in factshe suppressedthe} fact in the application. Respondent bank is^{proceedingagainstthe} secured asset on the strength of registered^MoDT dated^16.11.2018' Hence the appllcant is not entitled to any^{relief. The demand notice} was^personally received by the applicant^{and anotheron 01.09.2023.} The^possession notlce was sent by registered^{post, publishedon} 07.!7.2023 in English and Telugu^{newspapersand afflxed on secured} asset, as^per documents filed along with the^{reply statement.I find} no deviation of^procedure followed by^{the respondentbank'} Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Point No.(ial!

¶28

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} d ism issed.

¶29

Page 4 of4

¶30

sA No.49u2023

¶31

Consequently,InterlocutoryApplications stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶32

pending, if any, shall

¶33

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

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 24th doy of September, 2025).

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kalla Rajeshwari v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalla Rajeshwari v. South Indian 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gurram Penchalaiah

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kazi Tajamul Hussain

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bharat Oil Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gaajula Nagaraju

Sree Mayukha Educational Society versus Hdb Financial Services