Allowed

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT8 Sept 2025SA/76/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Securitisation Application challenging the Respondent Bank's measures for taking physical possession of secured property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, quashing the action due to lack of evidence regarding compliance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the scheduled property through advocate commissioner pursuant to orders of Sr.Civil Judge-cum Asst.Sessions Judge ar

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN-THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DA'TtrI) THIS'THE SIIr DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.76./2c25

¶5

M/s SR Agro llxport lndia I).l,td. Rep. by ils I)ircclor Smt.C.Shakunthala W/o {i. llanumantha Rao, Aged 62 ycars, Occ:busincss, Rlo l4-l-9O1340, Gayatri Nagar,

¶6

Borabanda, Hyderabad-SOO 0 1 8

¶7

G.llanumantha Rao S/o G. Sri l?amulu,

¶8

Aged 65 ycars, Occ:business, Rlo 1a-l-9}1340, Gayatri Nagar, Borabanda, ilyderabad-SOO 0 18

¶9

.. . Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Bank of lndia Rep. by its Authorized olTiccr, Stressed Assets Recovery branch(SARB-2) O lo 1-8-563 I 1, lsr l.'loor, Opp.Sandhya Theatre, RTC X Roads, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-SO0 020.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants Respondent Bank

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

: Si Kranti Kumar K. : Exparte

¶15

_o_RLER

¶16

1 . 'l'lr c Applici,ur ts Ii lccl t l'rc prcs('n t Se r: r:ritr sa tion Application u/ s. 17 of the Scr;r-tr-it izi-rtion ancl ltcco tr st rucrion of I,'inancial Assets and Enforcement ol'Stcuritr. I n lcrest l.-AItSI Act, 2002) challenging the stcps initiated physical possession of the sc hccirr Ic- prope'lt&.,tl,.ou issioner pursuant to the ordcrs oI t.d.Sr{civilO Scssions Judge, Medchal-

¶17

i"$Epr"ffi

¶18

Malkajgiri in Crl.M.p.No.36l /24 and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶19

'l'hc avcrments made i. the application, in brief, are that, the Applicants avail<:d various loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule properry. Due to liquidity crunch and market flucrr-rarions, thc Applicants could not pay some instalments. The Rcspondcnt Bank issued demand notice dt.04.07.2org and to the said dcmand noticc, thc Applicants gavc rely through their letter dt.3 I .o8.2o 18. without issuing possession notice, the Respondent bank issued sale notice d.t.o6.o2.2o2s for conducting auction of the schcdule property. 'l'he Ilank is trying to take physical possession of the schcdule property without following due process of law. The impugncd possession notice was neither published in two daily nc^rspapcrs nor affixed on thc schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶20

J. 4.

¶21

.J.

¶22

Noticc served to the Respondent, no representation and set exparte,

¶23

IIcard Ld. Counscl for thc Applicants.

¶24

Now thc points that arise for consideration is

¶25

i) Whelher the Applicants haue established. ang ualid ground.s for

¶26

<:hallenqing lhe measures initiate(t by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the scltedule propertg?

¶27

ii) 1b tuhat relief?

¶28

PeiltL Neli)

¶29

SA challcnging the impugned measures initirrtctl by the Laking physical possession of the s<:hcrluic pro commissioner u/s 14 of the sn liliAlisl Rcspo ent who invoked the SARFAESI

¶30

proc ",llf sgF.d6.^p *ty, failed to jusrify their action b1' liling Rc ucing n material documents to prove

¶31

that tho Rcspo,dcnr h.rs stricl.ry rolrowcd the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder in taking physicar possession of the securcd asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contcsting r.he matter and remained exparte. so, it can be inferred that thc Rcspondent is not disputing the version of the Applicants. In the abscncc of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complicd with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 tn procccding u/s 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicants have madc a <:asc frrr quashing t]rc mcasurcs initiated by the Respondent agairrst.lhc SA schcclulc property undcr the provisions of the sARFAESI Act and Rules rhereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶32

Point No,(ll)t

¶33

In thc rt:sult, SA76/25is allowcd. Accordingly, the impugned measures initiatcd by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schcclu le property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the ordcrs of Ld.Sr.Civil Judge-cum Asst.Sessions Judge, Medchal_ Malkajgiri in Crl.M.l).No.561 124 are hereby quashed. However, the Rcspt.rrc1t:.t is at libcrr.y to procccd afresh against the SA schedule propcrt) to rccovcr Lhcir ducs by duly following the provisions of SAllFnltSI Act, 2OO2 and llulcs made thereunder.

¶34

The l,tt:rlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No <lrdcr as to costs.

¶35

g. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dctated to the Piuate secrerary, transcibed by her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced bu me in the opetr court on this the 8tt, da!,J of September, 2025).

¶37

sd/-
..F
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
0ssEPm :
C''tq

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sr Agro Export India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

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

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ahmed Rickshaw and Cycle Parts

State Bank of India versus Sri Venkateshwara Rice Traders

Sri Sai Poultry versus Indian Overseas Bank