Dismissed

Gurram Radhika v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Hyderabad dismissed a Section 17 SARFAESI Act petition challenging a bank's possession proceedings. The Tribunal held that the bank strictly followed statutory notice and service requirements. Crucially, permitting separate applications for distinct properties was mandated, and no merit was found in the current challenge.

What did the court decide?

S.A. No.19A/2024 dismissed; Interlocutory Applications disposed of as of right.

Gurram Radhika versus Indusind Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.19A/2024

¶5

Smt. Gurram Radhika, W/o Gurram Prakash, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o D.No. i l-3-111 12, Nehru nagar Street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's hospital, Khammam

¶6

Gurram Prakash,

¶7

S/o Rama Rao, aged 54 years, Occ:business, R/o D.No. 1 l-3-1ll 1 2, Nehru nagar Street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's hospital, Khammam

¶8

Smt. Vijayalakshmi Gurram, W/o Rama Rao, aged 74 years,

¶9

Occ:business, R/o D.No. 1 I -3- I 1 I I 2, Nehru nagar Street, Near Chava Ramalingaiah Children's hospital, Khammam

¶10

... Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Indus Ind Bank Limited Rep. by its Authorized Officer 1-8-448, Sardar Patel Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad..

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

C ouns el for 1he Ap plic ant s : Si Si Kranthi Kumar K.
: Si G. Si G. G. Blwnu
,r,f%1qlf,,B9'-i{i*'
,;! "F nruedorF \ : 18.05.2026
:3O.O6.2O26
:3O.06.2026
irj h c' tffiff"W#ii:t
"ili
,,
"1-'.'.1,,'', ^F,i,
{"i,:,''
\tir']t,,,"
'''r-d.'-" r .',r"

¶15

: Si Si Kranthi Kumar K. : Si G. Si G. G. Blwnu MurThg

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent^for taking physical possession of the schedule^properties through^Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Khammamⁱⁿ Crl.M.P.No.24 123 ard subsequent orders in Cr1.M.P.No.O5 12025^and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶18

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶19

Applicant No.1 along with other family members availed business^loan from the Respondent and the Applicants created mortgage^againstlive properties in security to the said loan. After availing the loan facilities, Applicant No.1 had regularly paid the instalments. However, due to financial crunch and lock down, the business of Applicant No. I^went into loss and could not pay some instalments, so, the Respondent declared the loan account ofthe Applicant No.1 as NPA and issued 30 days sale notice dt.17.O1.2O22 by fixing the auction on^O7.O3.2O22 against two properties without following due^process of^law. Challenging the said measures, Applicant No. I^{frled SA 46122 before} the Hon'ble DRTI-II, Hyderabad and as there is no^presiding officer,^the Applicant No.1 approached the Hon'ble High Court for the^{State of} Telangana, Hyderabad. Hon'ble High Court has^granted interim^stay and as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Applicants^deposited Rs.S lakhs and thereby complied with the said order. While^things stood, the said SA was dismissed for default and then the Applicant No. I has MA which is still pending. Without considering the 8?Yihe ,$e^{Applicants, the Bank is proceedingagainstthe} ,:#bther for taking physical possession through advocate ..fT'"frl1nfif26with5r}lt serving demand notice and^{possession notice.} I the Respondent s tway proceeded for taking physical possession hedule p and so, the said proceedings are not legal and possession notice was not published in two daily Yenv 2

¶20

newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule properties as contemplated u/ r 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶21

¶22

The Respondent filed their counter and adopted the same as Reply in the SA denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant No.1 availed Agri Term loan of Rs.200 lakhs from the Respondent Bank. After availing the loan, Applicant No.lcommitted default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O6.O7.2O2l u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.08.1 l.2O2l and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and the same was affixed on the schedule properties. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the Act, 2OO2 arrd obtained orders from the Ld.CJM, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.24l23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and challenging the said proceedings, the Applicants filed the present SA and obtained interim order, however, complied with the said order with a delay of 83 days. Thereafter, the Respondent again proceeded and obtained orders in Crl.M.P.No.05/ 25 against the other two mortgaged properties and so, the schedule properties in warrants in Crl.M.P.No.24l23 and Cr1.M.P.No.5l25 are different and the Applicants have to Iile separate SA for challenging the said proceedings. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the the material brought on record.

¶24

arise for consideration are

¶25

h#ffiE$

¶26

i. uhether the Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for chollenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAcI, 2002 through aduocate commissioner^{pursuantto the} orders in Crl.M.P.No.24/ 23?

¶27

ii. WlptLer ttrc Applicants ore entitled to challenge the subsequent proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking^phgsical possession of other properties pursuant to the orders in Crl.M..P.No.5/ 25?

¶28

iii. To what relief ?

¶29

Points No.(il&(ii):-

¶30

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and^Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶31

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 availed^Agri Term loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against five properties and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI^Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule^properties.

¶32

is that the Respondent without

¶33

notice and without following Rule initiated proceedings for taking

¶34

1( t ) t'h'l' ffi"'ri,;i'oo& properties through advocate Act, 2OO2 and so, the said

¶35

void.

¶36

Per contra, Respondent contended that admittedly, Applicant No. 1 availed credit facilities from the Respondent against the mortgage of five properties. After availing the loan, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also in taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶37

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant No.1 as NpA, Respondent issued demand notice dt.O6.O7 .2021 u/ s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thus, there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.O8.1l.2O2l uls 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs frled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Security lhterBst {Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice ' ij .:... '.'. th6'JdtsP$ ;,^,p&i""t

¶38

ii.fr * 1 1 i iiilsi i7i ^" 3p.g ,{U[g?9".;Ji s.",io., r 4 or SARFAEST Act, 2002, arrer issuance *iorgpo"".".io., ffi#/s 13(a) of the SARFAEST Act, 2oo2, the secured approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief

¶39

¶40

Judicial Magistrate for taking^{physical possessionof the securedassets.} In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and^{possessionnotice to} the Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor,^approached Ld.CJM, Khammam u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002^{by filing} Cr1.M.P.No.24 123 for appointment of advocate^{commissionerfor taking} physical possession of three schedule properties. Ld.CJM, Khammam after considering the material on record, appointed^advocate commissioner for taking^{physicalpossession} of^{the said three schedule} properties and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to^the Applicants to vacate the schedule^properties and the^{said notice was} admittedly served on the Applicants, so, the said^{proceedingsare perfectly} legal and valid. Challenging the said^{proceedings, the Applicantsliled the} present SA and also obtained interim stay order, however the Applicants complied with the said interim order^{with a delay of 83 days. Thereafter,} the Respondent Bank again^proceeded u/s 14 of^{the SARFAESI Act,2OO2} for taking physical possession of two other^{mortgagedpropertiesand} obtained orders from the Ld.CJM,^{Khammamin CrI.M.P.No.5125and} challenging the said proceedings, the Applicants^{{iled LA. and amended} the SA. However, the properties mentioned in^{Crl.M.P.No.24} 123^{and in} Cr1.M.P.No.5/25 are different and hence^{the Applicants cannotchallenge} the said proceedings in Crl.M.P.No .5125 in the^{present SA and the} Applicants are supposed to hle separate^SA for^{challengingthe fresh} proceedings vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.5l25 against the said two properties.

¶41

t2. considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion^{that the} not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. d warranting interference of this Tribunal with^the

¶42

1n1 the Respondent for taking^{physicalpossession of} lep es u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2ⁱⁿ st the schedule properties in SA, however, the

¶43

crr.flilP NUtp2UA3 .No.OS/25 against the two other properties are ot be challenged in the present SA as the said 6

¶44

properties are different from the SA application schedule properties. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶45

Point No.(iii):-

¶46

In the result, sAl98l24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶47

t4. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶48

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 30th dag of June, 2026)

¶50

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

3 o JUt,RF

¶52

trw

¶53

DRT.I, TTYDERAB,qO,

Gurram Radhika v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Radhika v. Indusind Bank Limited

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

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry