Allowed

M Venkataramana v. Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT10 Jul 2026SA/194/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, setting aside an Advocate Commissioner notice for taking physical possession of schedule property. The court held that the respondent bank failed to prove compliance with mandatory due process, such as issuing demand notices and affixing possession notices as required by the Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application set up under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is allowed by setting aside the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 13.03.2026 in Crl.MP.No.127/2025.

M Venkataramana versus Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALI AT HYDERABAI) DATED THIS THE IOTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI ct MMN)I G}OPICHAND, PRESIDING OPFICER

¶3

SA.No.194 of 2o26

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mrs. Smt Manda Venkata Ramana w/o Vijay Kumar, female, aged 45 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.5-7-4221C,

¶6

Bottuguda, Near Vegetable market, Nalgonda town and district - 508 001.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Sudha Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, Nalgonda branch, Nalgonda town and mandal, Nalgonda district, Regd office at H.No.1-6-65, Near Vanijya Bhavan,

¶10

Suryapet- 508 213, TS

¶11

Represented by its Authorised officer

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant Shri T. Vijay Kumar

Respondent

Exparte

ORDER

The applicant filed Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the

¶19

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act, 2OO2 challenging the steps initiated by the i\ g physical possession of the schedule property ftrofln9sffFto'I: : ,-+, "-\ d("through^Adlp$t Commissioner notice dated 13.O3.2026 in N+h,*ro NFrnl

¶20

(sA.No.194/2026)

¶21

Crl.MP.No. 127 12025 on the lile of Hon'be CJM, Nalgonda district under SARFAESI Act.

¶22

The case of the applicant in brief is that applicant availed housing loan from the respondent bank in respect of Schedule property for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The applicant paid a substantial sum of Rs.2,50,000/till November, 2025. While matter stood thus, t1:e applicant received a notice dated L3.O3.2O26 wherein the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.Mp.l27 12025 issued vacate notice for vacating the schedule property within 15 days. It is further submitted that even after receiving substantial amount from applicant, the respondent bank was trying to take physical possession of residential house of applicant. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to follow the due process of law regarding schedule property of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder. The respondent bank failed to issue/ serve the demand notice and possession notice and respondent bank also failed to affix the possession notice at the conspicuous place of the property and also failed to publish in two leading newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure ppescnibg{-under Rule 8(1) and (2). Hence prayed to set aside all the ,i:r]..^{nntas.1rqp3iftti."teaby respondentbank under SARFAESI Act,2002.} .:.'.'^{.{}'</sup> '. . ;.1'^,) ;t ,i, 1]'^{LF' H.r,"Lthes6.'i* \ii} l,'.,r; : 10 JUL 2020 *\ [ ,., 1: Notice served ,$ t$espondent. Respondent called absent and set i.^{j,^4.} -.n-o;,1.11 ':;. ei":H?l:3.t1;'S#' \ii ..'; ',.: ."J^'":'.ai'" \i:,'.i.'.';,r-" 2}

¶23

(SA.No.19al2025)

¶24

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶25

Now the point for consideration is

¶26

il Whetler the applicant has establisLred ang ualid ground for setting aside tlrc Aduocate Commissioner notice dated 13.03.2026 in Crl.MP.No.127/2025 on the file of Hon'be Chief Judicial Magi.strate, Nalgonda district issued bg the Respondent bank against the scLedule property?

¶27

lil To What Relieft

¶28

Polnt no.il

¶29

As stated supra, the Respondent remained ex-parte. In^{the absence of} any proof with respect to the following of^{due procedureas} contemplated under the^{SARFAESIAct, 2OO2 and the Rules made} thereunder while enforcing^{the securityinterest over the application} schedule^property by^{the RespondentBank, the present Securitisation} Application has to be^{allowedbysetting aside the Advocate} Commissioner notice^{dated 13.03'2026in Cr1.MP.No.l27} 12025^{on the} file of Hon'be CJM,^{Nalgonda districtissuedby the RespondentBank} u/s.17 of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 againstthe application schedule}

¶30

10,JUL 2026^* In the result, tha t Securitisation Application^{is allowed} by Commissioner notice daled^13.03.2026 in - :.:i-rr 3

¶31

(sA.No.19al2026)

¶32

Crl.MP.No. 127 12025 on the file of Hon,be CJM, Nalgonda district issued under SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property.

¶33

8' The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shal stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(?ictq!! t? the P4, tanscribed. bg her, cnrrected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the opell court on thi.s the lryh daA ofJulg, 2026)

¶36

sd/-
(G. q)PTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
,6*H<br>{(s 10 luL lrw li
6-t. negdrotli
'w DRI-L Hi/DER.t i ,1 .'

¶37

M Venkataramana v. Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Venkataramana v. Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

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

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Ooha Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Vempati Sudha Rani

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S.Ismail Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vaibhava Laxmi SHO Group

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Shg Lingayipalli Group