Dismissed

Smt Mekala Manga v. Axis Bank

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by a borrower challenging Axis Bank's action under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of property. The Tribunal upheld the bank's compliance with notice provisions and NPA classification.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

Smt Mekala Manga versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{26TH DAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons), !1 A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No'g1 OF 2024}

¶5

Smt. Mekala Manga Wo^{Sri lvlekalaNarasimhaGoud} Aged 50^years, Occ:Buslness R/o H. No.5-2- 116-30/N^{1, Plot No.305} Devi Apartment, Thirumal^Nagar HB Colony, Meerpet,^{Secunderabad-500040}

¶6

Versus

¶7

Axis Bank Ltd. O/o RAC Branch H.No.5-2-183l184,^{Modi Squa re} 3'd Floor, R P Road,^Secunderabad Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶8

....Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the^AP?licants : Mr. K. Ravikanth

¶10

Counsel for Respondent : Mr.N. Sudarshan

¶11

-:9-B!l-B:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (herelnafter referredto as} "the Act") assailing the^{measures of the respondent bank under} Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of^{the Act lncludingaction to take physlcal} possession of the application^{schedule propertythroughadvocate} commissioner in Crl.MP^{No.51Oof 2023 on the filing of learnedChief} lYetropolitan Magistrate,^Malkajgiri.

¶13

The case of the applicant,^{ln brief, is that she availedODLimit} of Rs.75 lakhs from the^{respondent.Due to finan-cialproblems, there} ,rA-r.^ot'> (/ *'u"

¶14

PaEe 2 of 4

¶15

SA No.91/2024

¶16

was default in payment of interest. Without considering the request to give time for payment, respondent bank issued possession notice dated 14.09.2023 and on 25.07.2024 advocate commissioner came to take over the possession of the property. Applicant paid Rs.1.50 lakhs on 07.02.2024 and requested to regularize the account. Account was classified as NPA against RBI norms, respondent bank failed to follow Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter). Respondent bank also failed to provide statement of account. Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, brlefly, are that the applicant failed to regularize the account in spite of repeated reminders hence account became NPA on 05.08.2021 as per RBI quidelines. Demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 07.06.2023 for Rs.84,08,582/- was served on appticant and it was also published. As no payment was made possession notice was issued u/s 13(4) on 14.09.2023 which was served on the applicant/ published in 'lvlana Telangana' and 'Financial Express' newspapers on 15.09.2023 besides affixing on secured asset. Since the applicant refused to hand over physical possession of the property, the respondent bank approached the learned CMM for appointment of advocate commissioner for the purpose. SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Representative of learned counsel for the applicant reported orders may be passed based on records. Respondent reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Perused the material documents ptaced on recora.,49<#>b U'/ ':&v"

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

SA No.91/2024

¶21

The points for consideration^{are as follows :} - i) Whether the applicant^{madeout any valid ground} lo quash the measures of the^{respondent against the SA} schedute Pro7ertY,^as PraYed^for?

¶22

ii) To what relief?

¶23

Point No.(i):

¶24

The applicant admits of^{availing OD facility of Rs'75 lakhs and} failed to pay interest due^{to financial problems.Respondentbank} classified the account^{as NPA due to such default.HenceNPA cannot} be treated as against^{the RBI guidelines.The respondentbank filed} sufficient^proof along^{with reply statement, as to complianceof} Secs.13(2), 13(4) of^{the Act and Rules B(1) and 8(2), in serving} demand notice dated^{07.06.2023,possessionnotice dated} 14.0g.2023,^publication of^{the same inEnglish and Telugu} newspapers on 15.09.2023^{and affixture of possession noticeon} schedule property. Sec.14^{of the Act, 2002 is the provisionunder} which the respondent being^{securedcreditor took action for taking} physical possession of the secured asset. Such^{action cannot be} termed as illegal.

¶25

It is concluded that the^{applicantfailed to make out any valid} ground to set aside the measures under^{Secs.13(2)and 13(4) of the} Act and the actlon to take^{physical possession of the SA schedule} property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Point No.(ii):

¶27

B. In the result, the^{SecuritizationApplicatiop.fails and is hereby} I hrrv z.t , i.ri.^{:- dismissed.

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

SA No.9U2024

¶30

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

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

¶33

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26h doy of August, 2025).

¶34

,, , ,,,rv i. '' - ;.i "'i (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt Mekala Manga v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mekala Manga 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited