Dismissed

Mr Chukka Shashidhar v. Axis Bank

DRT7 Jul 2025SA/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued by Axis Bank. The court found the bank had duly followed statutory procedures under SARFAESI Act and Rules, including newspaper publication and property affixation, rejecting the claim of illegality.

What did the court decide?

Service Application No. 51/2022 was dismissed as there were no merits; interim applications disposed of.

Mr Chukka Shashidhar versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHETTH DAYOFJULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.51/2022

¶4

M r. Ch ukkaShashidhar, S/o Sammaiah, aged 45 years, H.No.3-1-34/ t t, Kakatiya Colony, Hanamkonda, Opp. 1000 pillar Timple, Warangal, Telangana-50600 1.

... Applicant

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd.

¶9

Rep. by its Authorized officer No.5-2- 183/ 184, Modi Square, III Floor, R.p. Road, Sec.bad_SoO 003.

¶10

Mr.Aluvala Anil Kumar, S/o Mohan Rao,

¶11

H.N O.2 -7 9, Kakkiralapally Village& Mandal, Warangal-5063 13..

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn K.Sai Rama Murthg CotLrtsel for l"t Respondent : Si P. Ramachandran Respondent No.2 : Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

L This Application is filed u/ s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Pinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the possession Notice dt.O5.03.2022 1st Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property fr+^-$t -qN same as illegal and s"u q'u'jL'Ia'Iv'arbitrary. k {s 'A\ .. lhe_a€im91ts^{mqll$by the Applicant in brief} are as folows: ;^orrr?rtr k&.,,,"*-S:

¶16

sAsT/22

¶17

Respondent No.2 availed loan from the lstRespondent Bank whereas the Applicantstood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. In view of the default committed by the Respondent No.2in repaying the loan dues, the lst Respondent Bank classified the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice dt.os. lo.2o21 u/s 13(21 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.05.03.2o22 u/s 13(4) of the Act and the said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and the Bank is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property without following the contemplated procedure. Hence the sA.

¶18

¶19

¶20

Thel"tRespondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the 2'dRespondent availed loan from the lst Respondent bank whereas the Applicant stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Later Respondent No.2 committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 01.11.2O2O. Thereafter, the lstRespondent bank issued demand notice dt.os. to.2o21uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2but the Respondent No.2 and Applicantdid not comply with the said notice and so, possession notice dt.0s.03.2022 uls 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 was issued by the bank and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and Respondent No.2. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in mana Telangana and Financial Expressdaily newspapers and thus there are no violations in taking symbolic possession of the secured asset.. Accordingly, lstRespondent Bank prayed to dismiss the sA.

¶21

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the lstRespondent whereas the Respondent No.2 remained exparte. perused

¶22

are

¶23

tl*^Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for the Possesslon Notice dt.05.03.2022 issued bg the nt Bank against the sclrcdule propertg?

sAsLl22

ii. To what relief ?

Polnt lVo.(il:-

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

¶28

There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe Respondent No.2 availed loan from the l"tRespondent Bank and the Applicant herein stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that theRespondent No.2 committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶29

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the lstRespondent Bank issued the impugned possession notice and the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and without following the contemplated procedure, the l"tRespondent Bank is trying to take physicalpossession of the scheduleproperty by vacating the tenants and so, the said possession notice is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶30

Per contra, l"tRespondent Bank contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,20O2 and Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and Respondent No.2.

¶31

ubstantiate their contention, the l"tRespondent Bank filed I documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per ts, it is clear that after classifying the loan account as t Bank issued demand notice dt.05.1O.2021 u/s

¶32

E^{0 lo"(fl. tm**} FAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the

¶33

W-';-t#

¶34

sAsrl22

¶35

Applicant and Respondent No.2 and the Applicant admittedly^received the said notice.. When the Applicant and Respondent^{No.2 failed to} comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent^{issued Possession} notice dt.O5.06.2O23 and the said notice was sent to the^Applicant through Regd.post and admittedly, the Applicant^{received the said notice.} The said possession notice was published in two daily^newspapersas evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the^{lstRespondent} and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule^{property as depicted} in the photographs filed by the l"tRespondent.^Thus, the^{l"tRespondent} Bank has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security^Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the^Applicant.

¶36

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the^{l"tRespondentBank} has scrupulously followed the^procedure laid^{down under the provisions} of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder^{in issuingdemand} notice and possession notice to the Applicant and^{there are no} violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour^of the lstRespondent and against the Applicant.

¶37

Polnt No.(tl):-

¶38

t2. In the result, SA 51 12022 is dismissed as there are no^merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if any,^shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcerned.}

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and^pronounced bg^{me in the open} court on this the Vt'dag of Julg, 2025). sd/ffi

¶41

PR.!hf*THH#T?

¶42

J orJurM :
6.{
r#. I a1 .tr/
kh,l;,f'#

¶43

'ff\flHk Assf'{bgtlsfiar 8RT.', HYDERASAE 4

Mr Chukka Shashidhar v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chukka Shashidhar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kanaparthi Prabhakar Rao versus State Bank of India

Sri Radha Krishna Agro Industries versus Union Bank of India

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Filling Station Others versus Union Bank of India

Mr.Duduku Prabhakar versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

Banoth Ramesh versus Indian Overseas Bank