Dismissed

Smt Akula VIijay Bhaskar and Another v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT24 Feb 2026SA/152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application filed by borrowers against Bank of Maharashtra. The court found no valid ground to set aside the bank's physical possession notice and other measures taken under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application stands dismissed; pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Smt Akula VIijay Bhaskar and Another versus Bank of Maharashtra — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDiNG OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 152 OF 2025

¶5

Sri. Akula Vijay Bhaskar Son of Sri. Akula Bhagaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occupation: business, Resident of Plot No. 12C, House No. t-5-437 /12, Suryanagar, Old Alwal, lonnabanda, Secunderabad 500010, lvledchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

¶6

Sri. Akula Jyothi,

¶7

Wife of Sri. Akula Vijay Bhaskar, Aged about 40 years, Occupation : House-hold, Resident of Plot No. 12C, House No. 7-5-437/12, Suryanagar, Old Alwal, Jonnabanda, Secunderabad 500010, Medcha I lvla I kaj giri District, Telan ga na State

¶8

..... ..Applica nts.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bank of Maharashtra Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Kukatpally Branch, Radhakrlshna Estate, Road No. 4, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072

¶11

Bank of Maharashtra

¶12

Rep. by its Chief Manager, Kukatpa lly Branch, Radhakrishna Estate, Road No. 4, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OOO72

¶13

..... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶15

: Mr. Chunchu Kishore : Mr.

Page 2 of 4

sA No. 15212025

-:g-B-D-E-B:-

The^present Securitizatlon^{Application is filed by the Applicants} uls.77 of the^{Securitisationand Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of^{SecurityInterest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for} short) to set aside all^{the measure initiated by the respondentbank} under section^{13(4) of the Act, 20025 includlng physical possessionin} respect of the SA^{schedule property throughadvocatecommissioner} notice dated 22.03.2025^{consequentto the physical possession notice} dated 15.01.2025.

¶20

The averments of the application,^{briefly, are that the Applicant} No.1 availed a housing^{toan and top-up loan aggregating} Rs.91,21,OOO/- and Rs.1,94,00,000/-^{respectively. Due to financial} exigencies resulting in repayment^{default,the RespondentBank} initiated action to take^{physicalpossessionof the schedule property} vide Advocate Commissioner^{notice dated22.03.2025i upon enquiry,} the Applicant discovered^prior issuance of^{possessionnoticedated} 75.01.2025, receipt of which is denied.^{Allegingviolation} of^Sections 26D, 13 & 14 SARFAESI Act, the Applicant^prays for setting aside^the measures of the bank against the schedule^property.

¶21

The Respondents 1 and 2^(hereinafter "respondent bank") filed reply statement along wlth list of documents. The averments, briefly, are that the housing and top-up loan facilities availed by the Applicants stand secured by mortgage over the SA schedule property. The demand notice and possession notice were served on applicants and published besides affixture of possession notice on secured asset. The present Securitisation Application, being devoid of merits warra nts d ismissa t with exem ptarc o*{fturrto

¶22

Page 3 of4

¶23

SA No. 152/2025

¶24

Learned counsel for the Applicants and Respondents reported no oral arguments; however, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank filed written arguments. Perused the same and also^perused the material broug ht on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, in his written arguments reiterated the version as in the reply statement,^affirms scrupulous compllance with provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and sought for dismissal of the SA with costs.

¶26

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶27

i) Whether the applicants made out any valid^ground for quashing any of the measures initiated by the respondent bank u/s 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, against the 5A Schedule property?

¶28

ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No.(i'l:

¶30

Admittedly the applicants availed loan facility from^the respondent bank against mortgage of the application^schedule property. Hence action of respondent bank under the Act, 2002 is lawful.

¶31

As per the material documents^placed on^{record by the} respondent bank, the demand notice and^possession notice^were served on applicants, the^possession notice was^published in^English and Telugu newspapers and affixed on^{securedasset. The documents} filed by the respondent bank are not disputed. I find no^{deviation of} Sec.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002^read with^rules 8(1)^{& 8(2) of} the Rutes, 2002,/ /Y>-1:.r, (--"/^{<rs'</sup> -}

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

SA No. 152/2025

¶34

As a secured creditor, the respondent bank in entitled under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to take physical possession of the secured asset which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶35

In the view of above observations, it is concluded that the applicants failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measure initiated by the respondent bank under the Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Point No.(ii):

¶37

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

L2. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24n doy of Februory,2026).

¶41

ft/1'rur\ MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt Akula VIijay Bhaskar and Another v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Akula VIijay Bhaskar and Another v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Hydropneum Hydraulik India Private Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Kunreddy Nagamani

Sln Projects Pvt. Ltd. M Obilesh M Anuradha M Venkateshwarlu Sln Projects versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Kovvuri Nagesh Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Chand Agencies

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/s. Chand Marketing