Dismissed

Mrs a Madhavi v. Hdfc Bank

DRT19 Nov 2025SA/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the bank's physical possession of mortgaged property. The Tribunal found the bank strictly followed statutory procedural requirements for demand notice and possession notice. Finding no infirmity in the proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Mrs a Madhavi versus Hdfc Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^'I 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.54,/2023

¶5

Mrs. A. Madhavi, W/o. late Mr. A. Nagendar Rao, Female, aged about 37^years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.32-7-59 (Old No.32-5l l), Near Arogra Matcha Church, Opp. Indira Nagar Colony, Palwancha, Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Housing Development Finance Corporation^Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Situated at 1st Floor, Sri^HariTowers, KP Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 008.

¶9

Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for tlw Applicant Si D. Raghanrulu. Counsel for the Respondent Sn iV. Y. Sumanth. Reserued on 31.10.2025 Pronounced on 18.I 1.2025 rJpbaded to Website on 18.11.2025

¶11

.:ORDERi

¶12

1 . The Applicant filed the^{present SecuritizationApplication undersection} 17 of the SARFAESI Act,^{challenging the actionof the RespondentBank} to take physical^{possessionof the applicationscheduleproperty in} pursuance of the warrant^{issued in crl.M.P.No.4} 12022^{on the Iile of I-d.} Chief Judicial Magistrate^{at Kothagudem'}

¶13

made in the application,^{in brief,are that,the Applicant's} . Aitha Nagender^{Rao availed loan of Rs.9.00 lakhs for} in the year 2005 from^{the RespondentBank and} schedule property as^{security' The Applicant's}

¶14

loan instalments regularly but,^{due to his sudden} 16, the Applicant faced financial^{crises and so}

¶15

SA.No.54/2023

¶16

requested the Respondent Bank for grant of some time for payment of the amounts due. The Respondent Bank, without considering the said request of the Applicant proceeded to take physical possession of the schedule property by obtaining warrant in Crl.M.P.No.4l2022 on the file of Ld. CJM, Kothagudem. The Respondent Bank has failed to serve Demand Notice u/s.13(2) and the Possession Notice u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act on the Applicant. The Respondent Bank has failed to affix the Possession Notice on the schedule property and has also failed to publish the said notice in two newspapers as contemplated under Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence, the SA.

¶17

The Respondent Bank filed its Counter denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, the Applicant's husband after availing the loan, was never regular in payment of the loan instalments so the loan account was classified as NPA. The Respondent Bank issued Recall Notice dt.28.01.2O2O but the demand was not complied with. So, the Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dt.10.02.2O2O u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r and was also published in newspapers dt.29.O2.2O2O. The Respondent Bank has taken symbolic possession of the schedule^property by issuing Possession Notice dt. 1¹ .O9.2O2O and the said notice was^published in The New Indian Express' and 'Nava Telangana' newspapers on 17.O9.2020. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank has^proceeded u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical^possession of the schedule^property by approaching the Ld. CJM, Kothagudem. The Applicant^{has not made} --f:::-"-"'""^'' out any-ase warranting interference^{of this Tribunal and the SA is liable} .,,,., ... ..'-n '^{,tobe disr.ni5sed.} 1 .li.lr_ ..il, '.!" ,,,, ,iit '',.,f f^' * r:t1\ ii^{u" o.1g} Hg?r*h"trr^{i3ynsels. I have perused the documentsbroughton record} ',,^,"., - by both the Par.ties. ':: .'r . ,.jr: ':1 ".,:i-.t^,, "t: '.^{l,' t",....,.} ,- ,.. ,,::^{ll "} ..,,.' po-ints that arise for consideration are,' .,,,.'.1.t,, ,lNow;'ihe

¶18

¶19

t4.No.54/2023

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property?

¶21

ii) To what relieP

¶22

Polnt No.(l)r

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant's husband availing a loan of Rs.9.00 lakhs from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property and according to the Applicant, the loan account could not be serviced due to her husband's death. As the loan account became NPA, the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to recover the outstanding dues from the Applicant. The Respondent Bank filed its material document along with IA.Nos. 1808 &,235512025. The Respondent Bank has liled a copy of Demand Notice dt. 1O.02.2O2O, issued u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, along with copies of postal receipts, returned postal covers and publication of the said Demand Notice in English & Telugu newspapers dated 29.02.2020. The Respondent Bank has also filed a copy of the Possession Notice dt. I l.O9 .2O2O, issued u/ s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, along with returned covers, photograph depicting affixture of Possession Notice on the secured asset and^publication of Possession Noticeⁱⁿ English & Telugu newspapers. From the aforesaid documents, it^{is very} clear that the Respondent Bank has duly followed the^procedure contemplated u/s.13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act r/w.^{Rule 8(1) & (2)} of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2O02.^{Sincethe outstanding} dues are not forthcoming, the Respondent^{Bank has invoked sec.14 of} ,"',I6e'"'SARFAESI^{Act for takingphysicai possession of the schedule} find any infirmity or irregularity in the action initiated ris\ Bank under the SARFAESI Act and^{Rules, 2002} schedule property. The Applicant has^{failed to} ':. * 1ffi?l?t,,lk " rirake out any grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated^by Bank against the application schedule^property. point is answered against the Applicant and in favour

¶24

S'A. No. 54/2023

¶25

lPotnt No.llll:.

¶26

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶28

(Dictoted to the Privote Sectetory tdnsdibed W her, corrccted, signed and Nonounced by me in the open court on this the 7* doy ol Novembea
202s).
sd/_
(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ffi<br>* lgNIr!"()( T
s" ..E trur%*
D[IT-1, HYDERABAT

¶29

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶30

!-**r:-9-

¶31

¶32

-€I

Mrs a Madhavi v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs a Madhavi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr S Prabhakar Reddy versus State Bank of India

Mohammad Ayoob versus Icici Bank Limited

Nandaram Singh Hazari versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Smt Balija Ramadevi versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

Indian Bank versus M/S. Raju Communications