Dismissed

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy v. Hdfc Bank

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application to set aside authentication proceedings. The court found the schedule property was a house, not agricultural land, thus not exempt from enforcement. The bank was found compliant with statutory notice requirements.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed and interim stay in I.A. No.781/2025 vacated; no physical possession taken.

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M,A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 116 OF 2025

¶5

l,lr. lYukkera Thirupathi Reddy, S/o, late. M. Narasimha Reddy, Aged 47 years,

¶6

Occ; Ag ricu lture, Residing at

¶7

H.No. l-70/247/40, Sivasai Nagar, Naga rju na Nagar, Kushaiguda, Kapra, Medchal f4atkajgiri District- 500062.

¶8

Mrs. Mukkera Sujatha

¶9

W/o. M. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 42 years,

¶10

Occ: Agriculture, Residing at

¶11

H.No.7-10/241/40, Sivasa i Nagar, Nagarjuna Nagar, Kusha igud a, Kapra, Medchal lv'lalkajgiri District- 500062.

¶12

I\4r. Ummenthala Mallikarjuna Reddy,

¶13

S/o. U. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 38 years,

¶14

Occ: Agriculture, Resident of

¶15

H.NO. 5-40, Konney Village,

¶16

Bachannapet 14andal, Jangaon District-506221. .....Applicants.

¶17

Versus

¶18

H DFC Ban K Ltd.

¶19

Ba nk House, 6th floor,

¶20

Roxana Palladium, #63-46 & 6-3-244/A, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶21

.....Respondent

¶22

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Anirudh Sadhu/Tanuja

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy ,ltt*r-'."^{1-</sup> 'D"}

Page 2^of5

sA No. 116/2025

-:9-B-D-]LB:-

The^{present Securitization Application ls filed by the Applicants} u/s.!7 of the^{Securitisationand Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement^{of SecurityInterest Act, 2OO2 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set^{aside all the proceedings includlngaction to take} physical possession^{of the SA scheduleproperty pursuant to advocate} commissioner^{notice dated04.03.2025in CrI MP No 08/2025 on the} fileoflearnedchiefJudicialMagistrate,Medchal-MalkajgiriDlstrictat M alkajg iri.

¶28

The^{avermentsof the application,briefly,are that applicant} availed^{cash credit and DOD farm developmentloan on 22'08'2020} Despite regular^{and substantial repaymentof Rs'20,51,574'43ps till} 30.08.2024,^{the accountwas classifiedas NPA unbeknown to the} applicant. Subsequently,^{Applicant received advocatecommissioner} vacate notice dated 04.03.2025.^{Respondentbank failed to follow} ss.13(2) & 13(4)^{SARFAESIAct in serving demand and possession} notices,^{publicationand affixture of possession noticeas per Rules} 8(1) and 8(2) of^{the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules' 2002} ("Rules" hereinafter).^{Without affordingfair opportunityto regularize} the account,^{respondent bank has taken SARFAESIactionHencethis} SA to set aside^{such action.}

¶29

The respondent^{bank filed replystatement alongwith} documents. The averments^{thereof, brief, are that admittedly} applicant availed agricultural^{cash creditand DOD-Farm Development} Credit facilities^{in August2022iupon repaymentirregularity, account} was classified as^NPA on^{07.70.2023,followedby demand notice} dated 30.08.2024 under^{section13(2) SARFAESI Act. Non-} compliance thereof within^{60 days prompted possessionnoticedated} 73.1!.2024 under section 13(4)^{whichwas personally servedupon}

,Ow:r'$

Page 3 of 5

SA No. 115/202s

Applicants. Respondent Bank thereafter secured Warrant for physical possession of the Schedule property under section 14 via advocate commissioner vacate notice dated 04.03.2025. Affirming full compliance of SARFAESI provisions and Rules thereunder, Respondent Bank avers Applicant's allegations untenable, rendering SA not maintainable; and sought dismissal thereof with exemplary costs.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned counsel for respondent bank, perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and also perused the material brought on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the Applicants while reiterating the contents of the application further contended that the Schedule property is an agricultural land hence exempted under section 31(i) SARFAESI Act, 2002 from enforcement under the SARFAESI Act. Without following due procedure, respondent bank issued demand notice dated 30.08.2024 and possession notice dated 13.11,2024 followed by action under Sec. 14. The entire action is thus null and void and accordingly liable to be quashed,

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent bank affirmed strict adherence of provisions of the Act and Rules of 2002 while enforcing the security interest. The property is not agricultural property. While relying on documents annexed to reply statement as proof of compliance, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA.

¶37

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶38

i) Whether the applicants made out any valid ground for quash the action of the respondent bank including taking physical possession of the SA schedule property through advocate SARFEST Act? commissioner appointed ulyder Section 14 of the

ffi*n

ii) To what relief?

Page 4 of 5

SA No. 116/202s

Point No.(i):

B. Without any^{pleading in the application,the applicants firsttime} contended at^{the time of arguments that the applicationschedule} property being agricultural^{property exempted for enforcementas per} Section 31(i)^{SARFAESIAct. However, it is evidentfrom the schedule} of property stated^{in demand notice, possession noticeand vacate} notlce, that the^{property is a house bearingNo 1-10-28/241/aoand} not agricultural^{Iand. Thus the contention on exemption of thesame} from enforcement^{falls to ground.}

¶45

The respondent^{bank filed material documents along withreply} statement^{as proof of complianceof due procedure of law Pages13} to 23 of the^{materialpaper annexed to the reply statementare the} Photostat copies of^{postal receipts/postaltrack reportsproving} service of demand^{notice.Similarly,Pages 24 to 35 are the Photostat} copies of^{postal receipts/postal track reports evidencing deliveryof} possession notice dated 73.11.2024^{on the applicants, photographs} evidencing affixture^{of possession noticeon securedassetand} publication of the same in English^{and Telugu (vernacular language)} newspapers on^{77.17.2024. These documentsamply prove that the} respondent bank^{hasfollowed Sections 13(2) & 13(4) of the Actand} Rules 8(1) and 8(2)^{of the Rules,2002.}

¶46

It is observed from the^{proceedings sheet that the Applicants} complied the interim conditional^{stay order in I.A. No.781/2025} Respondent Bank has not taken^{physical possessionof Schedule} property to date. However, being secured creditor^{Respondent Bank} rhe Act, 2002. is entitled to seek^{physicalpossession} un!2frg1 .o; / ://2'rbrD-

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

SA No. U6l202S

¶49

I I

¶50

In the view of above observations, it is concluded that the applicant has failed to make out valid ground to set aside any oF the measures of the respondent bank. Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶51

Point No.(iiI

¶52

t2. In the result, the securitisation Apprication fairs and is hereby dismissed.

¶53

consequenuy, interim stay granted vide order dated 04.04.2025 in IA.No.781 of 2025 shalt stand vacated. The Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

15' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶56

(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the 23'd doy of Motch, 2026).

¶57

*)s MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy 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

Similar cases

J Venkata Ramana Moorthy versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction

Bank of India versus M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Keshapaga Anjaneyulu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Ms Seven Hills Medical and General Stores versus Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd.