Dismissed

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai v. Central Bank of India

DRT25 May 2026SA/160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Securitization Application challenging a bank's action to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The DTI examined compliance with demand and possession notices. The applicant claimed procedural lapses but failed to substantiate them against documentary evidence of service and publication. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

null

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.16,0 /2025

¶5

M/s. Shiva Sai Poods, Rep. by its Prop: Kolate Shantha Bai, W/o. K. Maruthi, Gender: Female, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, Situated at: lOS lP2, Plot No.B2, Khanapur (V&M), Nizamabad. Applicant.

¶6

Versts

¶7

Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Situated at MGR Commercial Complex, 1"t Floor, R.P. Road, Nizamabad. Respondent.

¶8

Counsel for tLrc Applicant SiT. Sridhar Reddg.

¶9

Counsel for the Respondent Si Momin Molwmmed Rafiq. Reserued on 24.04.2026 Pronounced on 25.05.2026 Uplooded to the Website on 26.05.2026

¶10

-:ORDERi

¶11

The Applicant frled the present Securitization Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the action of the Respondent Bank to take physical possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the Advocate Comrnissioner's Notice dt.27.O3.28,?&iqsu"ed in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2025 on the fire of the Ld. chief J"di"illtffo{t$ffi*

¶12

The averments maderblftle Rppffit in ft'annlication, in brief, are that, the eppficant:iatai*? f"ll#?AZepf 8B.,t5.00 lakhs from the ii r, i\d-r.c _ _-... .- '-\ .,8 'i' ...:;-;-,+, ::^{,_ti:i;. ..;.} {i,,,,,r"i,^. :.j.q:i' -,(,,i;:--::=r;,--

¶13

:,A. No.160/2025

¶14

Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property, for the development of his business. After availing the loal there was huge frnancial loss to the business of the Applicant due to Covid-19 pandemic and as such the Applicant could not repay the loan installments regularly. The Applicant approached the Respondent Bank and requested for regularizing the loan account by receiving overdue alnount. But, the Respondent Bank illegally classified the loan account as NPA. The Applicant came to know that the Respondent has obtained Advocate Commissioner Warrant in Crl.M.P.No.727 of 2024 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the Advocate Commissioner issued notice dt.27.O3.2O25. The Respondent Bank has not served Demand Notice and Possession Notice on the Applicant. The possession Notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, The Applicant availed the loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs in the year 2022, wlricla is after Covid- 19 pandemic. The Applicant never approached the Respondent Bank for regularizing the loan account. Due to non-payment of loan amount by the Applicant, the loan account became NPA on 06.05.2023. The Demand Notice d1.16.05.2023 was personally served on the Applicalt. As the Applicant has frled to comply with the demand, the Respondent Bank has issued Possession Notice dt.30.08.2023 and took symbolic possession of the schedule propert5z. The Possession Notice wa* published in 'Hans India' and Trlamasthe

¶16

dt.O2.O9.2O23. The Possession Notice was also dues, the Respondent Bank has initiated

¶17

SA.No.160/2025

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,

¶20

Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the l"t Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶21

(ii) To what relieP

¶22

Polnt No.l z-

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant had availed cc loan of Rs.1S.OO lakhs from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property. The Appiicant has arso adrnitted about the defaurt committed by him in the repaJrment of loan amount. It is the contention of the Applicant that, the Respondent Bank, without serving Demand Notice and Possession Notice on him and without publishing the possession Notice in the newspapers and alfixing the said notice on the schedule property, has proceeded u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent Bank has opposed the said contentions and submitted that the Respondent Bank has dury folowed the proced.ure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2oo2 and to substantiate the same, the Respondent Bank fired materiar documents. I have perused the said documents.

¶24

A copy of the Demand Notice dt.l6.OS.2O23 filed by the Respondent Bank reveals that the Appticant has personally received and acknowledged the said the Possession Notice dt.30.08 .2023 along with postal receipts Bank establishes that the Respondent Bank has sent to the Applicant. Copies of publication of possession

¶25

..i}otice ntl 'Namasthe Telangana' dt.O2.O9.2O23 and copy of of Possession Notice on the schedule property

¶26

the cornpliance of Rules 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest Since the Applicant has failed to clear the

¶27

issuance of Demand Notice ald possession Notice,

¶28

SA.No.160/2025

¶29

the Respondent Bank has initiated proceedings u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the schedule property.

¶30

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I hold that the Applicant has failed to make out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent Bank.

¶31

Polnt No.ll :-

¶32

In the result, the present Securitization Appiication is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parlies concerned.

¶34

(Dctated -to tlv Priuate seqetary, transcribed by her, cotreded., signed. and. pronouned. bg DE in the open @uft on this the 25,' d.ag of MdV, 2026),

¶35

sd/(G. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

f; 2srlAYm ;

¶37

!faffi:;

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai v. Central 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

Sumalata Agarwal versus Standard Chartered Bank

Ms Sai Ram Krishna Motorbikes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Mr Ravikanti Ashok versus State Bank of India

Mohhamed Adil versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Sri S Ram Reddy versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Mohammed Nizam uddin versus Protium Finance Limited