Dismissed

Ms Svg Infra Rep by its Prop Sri Subramanyam Sista v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The applicants claimed procedural violations, but the Tribunal found the notices were properly served and the allegations of non-compliance were unsubstantiated by evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed and held to be devoid of merit.

Ms Svg Infra Rep by its Prop Sri Subramanyam Sista versus Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. I77 oF 2025

¶5

M/s. SVG Infra Rep by its Proprietor Sri Subramanyam Sista S/o Late S.V. Gopala Krishna Aged about 55 years

¶6

Occ: Business, H,No.1-8-55

¶7

Sy, No. 319, North Kamala Nagar Kushaiguda, Kapra Circle Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶8

Smt. Sista Annapurna W/o Subramanyam Sista Aged about 49 years

¶9

Occ: Housewife, H.No.1-8-55 Sy, No. 319, North Kamala Nagar Kushaiguda, Kapra Circle Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶10

Smt. Sista Nagamani W/o Late S.V. Gopala Krishna Aged about 86 years Occ: Housewife, H.No.1-B-55 Sy, No. 319, North Kamala Nagar Kushaiguda, Kapra Circle Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶11

......Applicants.

¶12

And

¶13

Bank of Maharashtra Rep by its Authorised Officer Secunderabad Branch Shop No.1, Gr. Floor Minerva Complex, SD Road Mahatma Gandhi Road Charminar, Hyderabad reransana 5oooo3.

.....Respondent.

1f5i>ru

SA.No.177/2025

Counsel for the Applicants Mr. D. Rag havu lu. counsel for the Respondent Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj.

¶18

-:ORDER:.

¶19

The Applicants filed the present Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) assailing the Possession Notice 17.03.2025 issued by the Respondent u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the application schedu le properties.

¶20

The case of the applicants as per the averments in the SA, in brief, is that they availed credit facilities for business and personal purposes to a tune of Rs.3.125 Crore between August 2077 and luly 2020 besides FITL of Rs.46.45 lakh in June 2021. The SA schedule properties were mortgaged as a security for the said loans. Applicants have paid interest for Cash Credit and GECL up to August 2023 and EMIS for Working Capital Term Loan and Funded Interest Term Loan) up to July, 2023. Despite request, interest-EMI breakup from June 2021 to June 2023 has not been furnished to the applicants. Applicants patd a part payment of Rs.87 lakh under oTS. However, respondent bank proceeded with issuance of impugned possession notice without granting further time to pay the balance OTS amount. Respondent bank failed to issue demand notice u/s 13(2) and serve possesslon notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act and affixl publish possession notice dated 77.03.2025 as prescribed u/r 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The value of secured assets is more than the outstanding amount. One of the secured assets is sufficierlt to discharoe ,VIY;,.>\ i//<'\t'

¶21

¶22

5A.No.777/202s

¶23

the liabirity. without considering the representations and the payments made by the appricants, respondent bank initiated Secu ritisation proceedings.

¶24

¶25

The Respondent filed its reply statement. The submissions of the respondent as per the averments in the reply statement, in brief, are:

¶26

The applicants were not regular in payment of EMIs necessitating Securitisation proceedings. The demand and possession notices were published in two newspapers one in vernacular daily besides serving on the applicants as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002. photostat copies of demand notice and possession notice with acknowledgements of applicants thereon are placed on record with the reply statement. As there being no violation of the procedure in issuance of mandatory notices under sections 13(2) and 13(4) read with Rules, 2002, the applicants are not entitled to any immunity or relief and hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Ld. Counsel appearing for applicants prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent bank reported no oral arguments. perused the written arguments filed by the respondent bank and the material brought on record.

¶28

The points that arise for consideration are,-

¶29

ll/hether the Applicants have made out any valid grounds for setting aside the possession notice dated 23.03.2025 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAEST Act?O$vrrt

SA.No.177/202s

ii) To what relieJ?

Point No.(il:-

6.Themaincontentionoftheapplicantsisthatdespitedepositing EMIs and servicing^{interest towards the respective loan} accounts, respondent^{bank highhandedly initiatedSARFAESI} proceedings without granting time to^{pay the balanceOTS} amount. The other^{contentionis that the respondent has not} furnished break-up of EMI and^{interest components for the} period from June 2021 to June 2023. The third^{contention is} that the respondent bank has not^{issued the notices under} sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act^{read with Rules} 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules,} 2002. In so far as depositing EMIS and servicing^interest regularly, except making bald statements, applicants have not produced an iota of evidence showing the date-wise EMIs deposited along with the SA. It is relevant to mention here that the averments in para 5(10) of the SA, reveal that respondent bank issued a possession notice earlier also on 07.12.2023 and applicants challenged the same by filing SA 1 of 2024. Thereafter, applicants withdrew the SA upon reaching a settlement under OTS. Notwithstanding the availability of above information on record, respondent bank filed a photostat copy of demand notice dated 29.L0.2024 containing the signatures of the applicants thereon to prove the point that the same was served on the applicants physically. Similarly, respondent bank placed a photostat copy of possession notice u/s 13(4) dated 20.03.2025 with applicants subscribing their signatures thereon vide material papers at pages 6 & 7 annexed to the reply statement. Further, respondent benk filed photographs ,4Aty,'.** 'J/'p

¶35

SA.No.177/2025

¶36

evidencing affixture of possession notice on the secured assets vide material papers at pages 10 to 15 annexed to the reply statement. These documents are not disputed by the applicants. Therefore, appricants cannot attribute vioration of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules on the part of the respondent bank. Thus these allegations are wrong and without any basis.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid observations, I find that the Applicants have failed to make out any valid ground for quashing the Possession Notice dated L7.03.2025 issued by the Respondent u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the present Securitization Apprication is devoid of any merits and is riabre to be dismissed

¶38

Point No.(iil:-

¶39

In the result, the present Securitization Application fails and same is hereby dismissed.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to the Steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2!d day of March, 2026). ffisr\

¶43

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Svg Infra Rep by its Prop Sri Subramanyam Sista v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Svg Infra Rep by its Prop Sri Subramanyam Sista 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

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

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank