Dismissed

M Sri Sailam v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Aug 2025SA/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act alleging non-compliance with the mandatory issuance and publicisation of a prior demand notice. The Tribunal found that a valid demand notice was served and complied with statutory requirements. Consequently, the possession notice was held legal and the challenge rejected.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession notice is dismissed as the issuance and publicisation of the demand and possession notices complied with the SARFAESI Act.

M Sri Sailam versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST,2C25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.94/ZOZ4

¶4

M.Srisailam, S/o late M.Rudranna, Aged 53 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5-1- 14911 to 6, Opp.SBI Main branch, Ghanapur Ward, Tandur, Vikarabad ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer SARB-ll branch, H.No. 1-8-563/ 1, 1st floor, Opp.Sandhya theatre, RTC X Roads, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-20. ... Respondent

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri K.Kranthi Kumar Counselfor Respondent : Sri K.Naragana Rao

¶8

ORDER

¶9

1' This Application is fiIed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.2O.O2.2O24 issued by theRespondent Bank i of the scheduie property and to

¶10

'2. (, ,,1 2ll,gam * ril. The Applicant availed Respondent Bank by creating mortgage in res perty. Due to ill-health,

¶11

he could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.2o.o2.2o24 to the Applicant without serving any demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. The said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and it was not affixed on the schedule property. The impugned possession notice is against the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the same is liable to be set aside. Hence the sA.

¶12

¶13

The RespondentBank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bank by creating mortgage against the schedule property, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 01.05.2023. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.l7 .O7 .2O23uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2and the said notice was received by the Applicant. The said notice was also published in two daily newspapers.After receiving the said notice, the Applicant submitted representation dt.17.0g.2023 admitting the loan amounts and requested the Bank to permit him to pay 25o/o of the loan dues. The Respondent bank furnishedtheir reply dt.22.o8.2023 to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Rbspondent issued possession notice dt.2O.O2.2O24 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶14

Ld. Counsel lor the Respondent.

¶15

Perused the matqfid_brought on recoid.

¶16

,*,!1-E;:-7:.:,.^^-

¶17

5.
; & * 12m8m '':?*
--i

¶18

u-thether the Applicant has established" ana ualid ground"s for challenging the Possession Notice dt.2o.02.2024 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property?

¶19

'l'o what relief ?

¶20

Point JVo.(if :

¶21

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

¶22

7 ' There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repayment of loan dues.

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice u/s I3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 the Bank straightawoy, issued possession notice and the said notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers.

¶24

Per contra, Respondentcontended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2o02 and Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶25

In order to su the Respondent filed relevant material filed by them. As per the said ao"r,{.fi," "f2r rrf6r1;[. a$ UIi2W2t Q ,4-rtl

¶26

documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued Demand notice dt.17.o7.2o23 and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal track report fired by the Bank. In fact, the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. After receiving the said demand notice, the Applicant submitted objections to the said demand notice on 17.08.2023 and to the said objections, the Respondent Bank submitted reply on 22.08.2023 in compliance of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. So, the contention of the Applicant that the bank has not served demand notice to the Applicant is untenable. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice dt.2o.o2.2o24and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule g(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2oo2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶27

1 1' Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations' So, the said possession notice dt.2O.O2.2O24 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of theRespondent and against the Applicant.

¶28

Point No.(ii):-

¶29

In the result,

¶30

there are no merits.
ll -i,
12 ll lS:
i{ ; ]? ilps
,,.u,
,"'.'
\1 .- '\..,..

¶31

i3. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.s, -trans-cribed. bg her, corrected., signed" and pronounced. by me in the open court on this the Vhdag of August, 2025).

¶34

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

--Urr,,lMr',ner-t, IIYITERABAD.

¶38

¶39

r--}_

M Sri Sailam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sri Sailam 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Popthi Varun

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Lalitha Upadhyay

State Bank of India versus Sri Mahesh Laxman Rikibe

State Bank of India versus Smt. T. Veeravathi

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Rafat Fatima

Velagapudi Steels Limited versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)