Dismissed

Sri Massa Srinivas v. Karnataka Bank Limited

DRT11 Aug 2026SA/190/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant contested the bank's physical possession of her mortgaged property, alleging procedural defaults in serving demand and possession notices. The court examined documentary evidence provided by the bank, including postal receipts and newspaper clippings. Finding the bank had strictly followed statutory procedures, the court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed with a direction to close any pending interlocutory applications.

Sri Massa Srinivas versus Karnataka Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No, 190 OF 2025

¶5

Sri. Massa Srinivas, S/o. M. Mallaiah, Aged about 42 years, Gender: Male, Occ: House Wife, R/o H. No. 9-190,Bugga Nagar, Ghatkeasar, KV Ranga Reddy District

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karnataka Bank Limited., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Situated at: Plot No.50, Srinagar Colony, Road no.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 073

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri. D. Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent : Sri. N. Rama Rao

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent, including the action of taking physical possession of the SA schedule property via advocate commissioner notice dated 02.01.2025 as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri in pursuance of the possession notice dated 04.03.2022 under section 13(4) of the Act.

OW*"

Page 2 of 5

SA No. 190/2025

The averments of the application, in brief, are that applicant had availed a housing facility of Rs. 50 Lakhs from the respondent bank against mortgage of the SA Schedule Property. The Applicant contends that, despite the loan account not having been validly classified as NPA and substantial payments having been made towards the loan, the Respondent Bank proceeded to take coercive steps for taking physical possession of her residential property. She alleges that despite repeated requests for regularisation and restructuring of the loan account, the Bank failed to consider her request and initiated recovery measures. It is further contended that the demand notice was not served upon her and that the Possession Notice dated 04.03.2022 was neither duly served, affixed on the secured property nor published in two newspapers as required under the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules" for short). The Applicant further alleges that, pursuant to proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2023, an Advocate Commissioner attempted to take physical possession of the property and subsequently issued notice dated 02.01.2025 granting 15 days' time to vacate. He also disputes the description of the property in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and contends that the measures initiated by the Respondent are contrary to the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the applicant prays for setting aside the SARFAESI measures initiated against the SA schedule^property.

¶17

The Respondent Bank filed its reply statement along with supporting documents. The averments thereof, in brief, are that Respondent Bank admits that the Applicant availed the housing loan facility and mortgaged the Schedule Property as security, but disputes the other averments. The Bank contends that the Applicant committed defaults in repayment during the COVID-19 pandemic and N,"

¶18

Page 3 of 5

¶19

SA No. 190/2025

¶20

that the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021 with effect from 02.LL.2020. It is further averred that the Demand Notice dated 21.08.2021 under Sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act, having been returned with the endorsement "Party Left", was subsequently published in Business Standard and Mana Telangana on 29.12.202L. The Bank further states that the Possession Notice dated 04.03.2022 was duly issued, published on 09.03.2022 in the said newspapers and affixed on the Schedule Property. As the Applicant failed to regularise the account or discharge the outstanding dues, the Bank initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2023 also appears in the record. Pursuant thereto, an Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 02.0t.2025 calling upon the Applicant to vacate the premises within 15 days and proceeded to take physical possession in accordance with law. The Bank denies any violation of the Act or Rules, 2002 and contends that all statutory requirements were duly complied with. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶22

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant alleges respondent bank failed to serve demand notice under section 13(2) and possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act. Counsel further alleges respondent failed to affix the pos:esslgfi notice over the secured asset and publish the same in two leading newspaper as mandated under Rule B(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. Respondent having failed to abide by the provision under Act rea( wlt Rules, 2002, counsel prays for interdicting the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA Schedule nronertVlgt(tr!

¶23

Page 4 of 5

¶24

SA No. t90l10ls

¶25

Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank denied the averments of the Applicant and places reliance upon the material papers annexed with the reply statement. It is submitted that the Applicant account was classified as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines and that the Respondent Bank had strictly followed the due procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the s.A.

¶26

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶27

quashing the action of the Respondent Bank foi taking the physical possession of the sA schedule property thiough Advocate commissioner appointed under thie piovision of

¶28

ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No.(i):

¶30

B. The Respondent Bank fired material documents as proof of compliance of due procedure of law. pages 4 to 16 of the material paper annexed with the reply statement are the Photostat copies of postal receipts, acknowledgement, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 29.tz.zo2L proving service of demand 'i: notice. Similarly,^pages 17 to 28 are the photostat copies of postal receipt and postal acknowledgement of possession Notice dated , 04.03.2022, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspf n"rc on 04.03.2022. In view of sufficient proof place on recoro, i rino no infraction of ,.rrffi& 13(4) of the

Page 5 of 5

sA No. 190/202s

Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) ofthe Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶35

In view of above observation, it is concluded that the Applicant failed to establish any ground to interdict the measures initiated Respondent Bank under the Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Point No.(ii):

¶37

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

¶38

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

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

¶41

(Typed to my dictotion by the sleno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th doy of Auqust, 2026).

¶42

PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Massa Srinivas v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Massa Srinivas v. Karnataka Bank Limited

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

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sri Meghavath Pandu Naik

Sri Bathala Venkata Sudhakar versus State Bank of India

Smt Kusuma Kumari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus Ms Sabiha Agencies

Satish Kumar Shivaratri versus Axis Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Vayuputhra Crane Services