Dismissed

Pampari Ashwini v. Idbi Bank

DRT27 Mar 2026SA/178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside a possession notice issued by IDBI Bank. The Court found the bank complied with the SARFAESI Act's notice requirements and rejected the claim that the debt was covered by insurance, noting the borrower had only opted for property insurance.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; all interlocutory applications stand closed; no order as to costs.

Pampari Ashwini versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization Application No. 17g Of 2AZ5

¶4

Smt. Pampari Ashiwini W/o. late. Pampari Satish Kumar, Aged about 34 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No.32-263, Plot No.88, HMT Society, Shapur Nagar, Opp: SVK Hospital, leedimeUa, Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana State- 500055

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Branch Manger IDBI Bank Ltd. MIG-20, Municipal No. 15-24-230, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072

¶8

The Authorised Officer

¶9

IDBI Bank Ltd., Zonal Office, H.NO.5-9-89/1&2, Chapet Road, Hyderabad- 500001

¶10

Sri. Pampari Sathyanarayana Flat NO.302, Plot NO.92, 93, 102 & 103 Sai Bhanu Embassy, Balaji Lay Out, Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana State- 500055

¶11

. . .... Respondents

¶12

: Mr. M. Rama Rao Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2: M/s. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for Respondent No.3^. ro, er"rrffi,A*

Page 2 of 5

SA No. 178/202s

-:93-DEB:-

The^{present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants} uls.l7 of the^{securitisationand Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement^{of security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set aside^{assailing possessionnotice dated1B'03'2025} issued by the^{respondentbank undersection13(a) of the Act against} the SA schedule ProPertY.

¶17

The averments^{of the application,briefly,are that the applicant} is wife of Late sri^{pampari satish Kumar and 3'd Respondentis} father.in.lawoftheapplicant.LateSriPampariSatishKumar (hereinafter "Borrower") availed^{ahome loan facilityof} Rs.37,60,000 l- from^{RespondentNo.1 (hereinafter"Respondent} Bank")on2g.05.20lg,securedbydepositoftitledeedsovertheSA Schedule^{property, with the loan insured in his name' Initially} borrower was^{regular in repayment of loan but defaulted followinghis} demiseon28.a6'2024.TheApplicantassertsthattheoutstanding dues are liable to be^{settled throughinsuranceproceeds,which the} Respondent Bank has^{neglected to adjust'Subsequently, the} Respondent Bank^{issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of the} SARFAESI Act dated^{07.01.2024(manifestly manipulative,addressed} in the Applicant's name despite^{the borrower being alive) and a} possession notice under Section 13(4)^{dated 22.03'2025' The} Applicant denies valid service of^{the demandnotice, havinglearnt of} proceedings only via paper^publication of the^{possession notice, and} atleges material non-compliance^{with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's} directives in Mardia Chemicals v'^IJnion of^{India,Sections13(2),} 13(3A), 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, and^{Rules8{1), 8(2) of the} OY**

¶18

page 3 of5

¶19

SA No. 17812025

¶20

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OOZ (hereinafter ,,the Rules")' The Appricant prays for arowance of the sA on principles of naturar justice and a direction for settrement of dues from insurance claim proceeds.

¶21

3' The respondent bank and 2"d respondent fired repry statement along with list of documents. The averments thereof, brief, are that they deny that any insurance cover was avaired by the borrower at the time of home loan sanction on 29.05.2019. The account was classified as Non-performing Asset (NpA) on OB.IO.ZO24, followed by a recall notice dated ZL.ll.2024 issued to both the Applicant and the borrower. Upon the Applicant,s enquiry regarding adjustment of insurance proceeds post-notice, the Bank informed that no such insurance existed in favour of the borrower. The demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 07.Ot.2OZS (correcting the Applicant's erroneous date of 07 .01.2024) was duly served via registered post on 10.01.2025. After expiry of 60 days therefrom, the possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 18.03.2025 was personally derivered, affixed on the secured asset, and pubrished in Financial Express (English daily) and Mana Telangana (Telugu daily) on 22.03.202s, in strict compriance with the SARFAESI Act and the Rures thereunder. The Respondent Bank affirms fu, procedurar adherence and prays for dismissal of the Securitisation Application.

¶22

The Applicant filed a memo dated 25.04.2025 stating that she is not pressing the present SA against the 3d respondent.

¶23

5' Heard the arguments of the rearned counser for the appricant and learned counsel for the respondent bank and respondent no.2. Perused the written arguments fired by thegspondent bank and arso perused the material brought on record. , ,X\w- . ^ ^ r. ,/^{/y1 t..-}

¶24

Page^{4 of 5}

¶25

SA No.^178/2025

¶26

Learned^{counsel vide written arguments' reiterated the} averments^{madein its reply statement/viz'' that NPA classification} was effected^{in accordancewith RBI guidelines and that the demand} notice under^{Section 13(2) and possessionnotice underSection 13(4)} were^{issuedin fuil compilance with the provisionsof the SARFAESI} Act and^{the Rules'The RespondentBankfurther highlightedthe} incorrect^{facts and figuresin the Appricant's averments,particularly} the correct^{date of the demandnotice as O7'O|'\OZS and not} 07.0t.2024.^{Respondentdenied that the debt is covered by any} insurance.^{With thesecontentions'the Respondent Banksought} dismissal of^{the Securitisation Application'}

¶27

The^{pointsfor consideration are as follows : -}

¶28

i) Whether^{the applicant made. out. anY valid groundto} quash the p*llitii'^{iotiice dated} .18'03'2025^{issued bv} tne responae'il;ni^{under section 13(4) of the Act?}

¶29

ii) To what^relief?

¶30

Point No.(i'l:

¶31

It^{is not in dispute that the applicant husbandavailed the home} loan from the^{respondentbank against the mortgage of the sA} schedule^{propefty and defaulted in repayment'}

¶32

The^{material recordproducedby the respondent bankamply} proves that the demand^{notice under section13(2) was delivered to} applicant and^{R3 as being the legal heir of the borrower' The track} report^{proves the deliveryof notice to the applicant and R3; hence} there is no^{truth in the contentionthat the applicant was not served} the demand^{notice.The respondent bankhas filed sufficient proof to}

OYn*t

page 5 of 5

SA No. U8l202S

showcase that possession notice was personaily derivered, pubrished in English and relugu newspaper and affixed on the secured asset. None of these documents have been disputed by the applicant, considering the sufficient proof placed on record, I find no deviation of SARFESI procedure.

¶37

10, The Applicant has further contended that the outstanding loan amount be settled from insurance claim proceeds; however, perusal of the record reveals that the borrower had opted for property insurance and not insurance covering the debt in the event of the death of the borrower. The said contention of the Applicant (cannot be accepted.

¶38

In the view of above observation, I hold that the applicant failed to make out varid ground to set aside the measure initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFESI Act against the application schedule property.

¶39

Point No.(ii'l:

¶40

In the result, the SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Typed to my dictation by the P5, corrected, signed dnd pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 2/h day of Morch, 2026),

¶44

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pampari Ashwini v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pampari Ashwini v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja versus Bank of India

Mrs K Vinodini versus Indian Bank

M/s. Bank of Baroda. versus Sri. Ravi Amgoth

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Ruchikara Foods Pvt. Ltd.

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Its U Fashions

Sri Saraswathi Junior College versus Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction And Securitisation Company Ltd.