Dismissed

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao v. State Bank of India

DRT24 Jun 2025SA/93/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by a borrower challenging a possession notice. The Court held that the Respondent Bank scrupulously followed the prescribed procedure including serving notices and appointing an Advocate Commissioner, thereby rejecting the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application is dismissed. Consequently, interlocutory applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao versus State Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

SA.No.93,/2C23,

¶4

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao, S/o. Gunda Markandeva. MaIe, aged about 59 vJar.s occ: Business. r.rat ilo.iiZ H.No.5 l.t-116, 112. iie, t'rs, Kallada Apa-rtments, Beside t el asvi High School. Hanamkonda-5060O I .

¶5

Applicant.

¶6

Terszs

¶7

State Bank of India. I"p Py^{it AuthorizedOfficer,} Retarl Assets & Small Medium yl,::p:"": City credir centre, J.P.r. Road. Waran gal _ 506002.

¶8

Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶10

Si D. Raghatrulu.

¶11

Si G. Prabhakar Sarma.

¶12

.:ORDERi

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the possession Notice dt.15.02.2023, issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the application schedule property and also the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank schedure property throu gh i:l#::#",'"".1 j"".T*""^{or the apprication} passed in crl.M.p.No.23 of 2o23on the file of the r.d. #H::i'^;["; Warangal. /rr--j_, :.^.-...,..... 't'r'^ ^" ^" r ne avermenrs nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,ne avermenrs nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,'/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,tr,E gpbti""h#i,gpbti""h#i,^{' '} "

¶14

't'r'^ ^" ^" r ne avermenrs nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,ne avermenrs nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,nfa&v '/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,'/'giuu1 tr,E gpbti""h#i,tr,E gpbti""h#i,gpbti""h#i,^{' '} "

¶15

App'ican, ".

¶16

App'ican, ".^{if{iilJ';';ffi,:T#iffi:::::::":} urt^{T ln., ",",ha,,,he} Spondent^{Bank bv mortgaging the}

¶17

application ""iJdf,.:"-:'-,.-.]:;:." e?elrt'J6fr1ff**t Flf" could not repay the loa,, due to

¶18

SA.No.93/2023

¶19

Covid pandemic. So, the loan account^{has been classified as NPA by the} Respondent Bank. The Respondent^{Bankwithout issuing Demand Notice and} Possession Notice and without affixing and^{publishingthe statutorynotices,} has initiated steps before the Ld. Chief Judicial^{Magistrate u/s.14 of the} SARFAESI Act, for taking^{physical possession of the applicationschedule} property. Hence, the SA.

¶20

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement^{denying all the adverse} allegations made in the application^{and contended that, the Applicantafter} availing the loan, committed default in^{repaying the loan amount and so the} loan account has been classified as^NPA on^{01. 1 1 .2022. The Respondent Bank} issued Demand Notice on 14.12.2022 and^{same was served on the Applicant.} Thereafter Possession Notice dt.15.O2.2023^{was issued and samewas received} by the Applicant. The Possession^{Notice was affixed on the scheduleproperty} and the said notice was also published in 'Hans^{India'and Velugu'newspapers.} Thereafter, the Respondent Bank approached the^{Ld. Chief JudicialMagistrate,} Warangal and filed Crl.M.P.No.23l2023 u/s.14 of the^{SARFAESIAct, andthe} Ld. CJM was pleased to appoint^{AdvocateCommissioner for taking physical} possession of ttre application schedule property. Thus,^{the RespondentBank} has duly followed the procedure laid down^{underthe SARFAESIAct and the} Rules made thereunder and so the SA^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

Now, the points tJlat arise for consideration^are,-

¶23

Whether the Applicant has established any^{grounds for setting aside the} proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the^{SARFAESI Act} against the application schedule^property?

¶24

ii) To what re1ieP

¶25

Point No.(i):-

¶26

There is "+ that the Applicant availed Housing^Loan $ispute

¶27

by 1e property and thereafter committed default p"yfl.t Jtt[r045. t.

¶28

SA.No.93/2023

¶29

The contention of the Applicant is that, the Respondent Bank without serving Demand Notice and Possession Notice, is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Ld. cJM, warangal in crl.M.p.No.23 /2023. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that, it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act a,,d the Rules made thereunder wh e issuing Demand Notice and Possession Notice to the Applicant and so it is entitled to take physicar possession of the schedule property.

¶30

The Respondent Bank, in order to establish that it has scrupulousry followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, in issuing statutory notices to the Applicant, has frled the materiar documents. As per the said documents, the Respondent Bank has issued Demand Notice dt.14. 12 .2022 u/s.13(2) of tlre SARFAESI Act and sarne was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the Postal Track Reports. Therea-fter, the Respondent Bank has issued possession Notice dt.15.02 .2023 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI and sarne was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal Track Report. The possession Notice was affrxed on the application schedule property as depicted from the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, the possession Notice was published in 'Hans India, and Velugu, newspapers d,ated, 21.02.2023 as evidenced by the copies of paper publications frled by the Respondent Bank.

¶31

As per Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Respondent Bank being secured creditor is entitled to approach concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank has approached the Ld. CJM, Warangal by filing Cr1.M.p.No.23/2023 and the Ld. CJM was pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the Advocate comrnissioner has issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. The Applicant, instead of vacating the schedule property, has filed the present SA.

¶32

So, in the circums s-tated above, I hold that there are no merits in the SA and the establish any valid ground warranting

¶33

in 6trro steps taken by the Respondent Bank for

¶34

taking schedule property through Advocate against the Applicant.

¶35

SA.No.9i/2O23

¶36

Polnt No.lfil:

¶37

In the resurt, the present securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, sha, stand disposed of. No order as to costs-

¶38

(Dictat"d to the Priuate secretatg, tt.,nsc,ibed bg him, arected, signed and. pronounced bg me in the open courl on thj.s the 24rh d.ag of June, 2O2S).

¶39

sd/-

¶40

(G. GOPTCHANDI Presldlng Oflicer

¶41

2 t JUtl r{ffi

¶42

I RUE COPY
A t4a;1,'
As#eglttlat
o':7.I.5tfis.l484n

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Madduri Someshwar Reddy

Ms Population Shoe Mart versus Ms Piramal Capital and Hosuing Finance

M s Mourya Automotives versus The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

md azeez ahmed versus shriram finance limited

vootla vara parasd versus shriram finance limited