Dismissed

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu v. Union Bank of India

DRT4 Feb 2026SA/132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a SARFAESI Act application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the applicant's challenge to a bank's possession notice. The bank demonstrated proof of notice publication and property affixation, concluding that procedural violations had not been established.

What did the court decide?

The application (SA 132/2C25) was dismissed. Any pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No. 132/2C25

¶5

M/s Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Vema Rambabu, S/o late Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ:business, Situated at R/o H.No.3-31, Station Road, Yerrupalem village, Khammam District. ... Appiicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Yerrupalem branch, Situated at Station Road, Yerrupalem village, Khammam District-S07 2Ol ... Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Sri D Raghauulu Counsel for the Respondent : Sri V.Raghu Reserued on :09.01.2O26 Pronounced on : 04.02.2026 Uploaded on :O4.O2.2026

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action of the Respondent Bank in issuing Possession Notice d-..!7.O2.2O25 in respect of the schedule properties and to declare the same as nuli and void.

¶10

ts made in the Apulication in brief are as follows:

¶11

availed OD loan facility of Rs.34,76,OOO/- from the created mortgage against the schedule properties as

¶12

0 4 rEB 2026

¶13

security for repa5rment of the loan. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and requested the Bank to regularize tir,e account. But the Bank illegally declared the loan account as NpA. The Respondent failed to give reply to the objections raised by the Applicant in response to the demand notice u/s 13(34) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. without complying with section 13(34) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.O7,02.2025 u/s 1S(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and the said notice was not served on the Applicant. The impugned possession was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule properties and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse a,llegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant has filed the present sA without impleading the owners/mortgagors either as co-applicants or as formal respondents. Earlier this Honble Tribunal passed orders in SA 91121 and also in SA 105/23. Keeping in view, the discrepancies that have crept in, the Respondent Bank has taken fresh steps by issuing demand notice dt.26.11.2024 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others. When there is no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.o7.o2.2025 by duly following the procedui'e prescribed under the provisions of SARI?AESI Act, 2OO2 and Rrrles made thereunder and there are no deviations. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counset for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

whether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for setting aside the Possesslon Notice dt.07.02.2025 issued bg the Respondent inst the schedule properties? "ia relief ? its

¶19

l, t

¶20

O 4 FEB ?-W6

¶21

Point No.(i):-

¶22

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

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan facilities from the Respondent and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.26.11.2O24 and, admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the possession notice dt.O7.02.2025 and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶25

B. But the Respondent contended that the Bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant by duly following the procedure as contemplated uncler the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶26

g. In order to prove their contention, the Respondent Bank filed- material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.26.17.2o24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. In fact, the Applicant also admitted the receipt of the said notice. Though the Applicant contended that the Applicant raised objections in response to the said demand notice, .y material evidence to prove that he raised objections and rjections to the Respondent Bank. So, in the absence of ,^{non-compliance} of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI se. Thereafter, Respondent Bank issued possession

¶27

0 4 FtB ?fi6

¶28

notice dt.O7.O2.2025 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulously complied with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the secured assets u/s 13(a) of the Act and so, the said possession notice dt.O7.02.2025 is perfectly lega1 and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶29

Point No.(ii):-

¶30

In the result, SA 132125 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interiocutory Applications, pending if aLy, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

i ,. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg rne in the open court on this the 4th dag of February, 2026)

¶33

sd/-
(G. GOPr CHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ffi<br>-rRUErpoPY
iJ o I FEB ?026
h'
$) 0,'i1;Y
Asrffiefultar
DRT"T, HYDE,NT"fi!I!1
?-t *fg
@**m#

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu v. Union 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

Sri Javvaji Suresh versus Bank of Baroda

M S Lmr Constructions versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Miss. Kota Karika

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai