Dismissed

B Venkatalakshmi Traders v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT26 Feb 2026SA/4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged a Notice of Possession issued by the bank alleging non-compliance of statutory procedures. The tribunal found the bank had duly followed the Act and Rules, validated service of notices, and classified the account as NPA. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application is dismissed. Interlocutory applications pending stand closed.

B Venkatalakshmi Traders versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 4 OF 2025

¶5

B Venkata Lakshmi Traders, Rep. by its Prop: B. Brahmaiah Shop No.138, Agricultural Market Yard Adoni, Kurnool -518305

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kotak Mahindra Bank 6-3-LLO9/1,2nd floor, Navbharat Chambers, Rajbhavan Road Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82

¶9

Bathina venkata Mahesh S/o. Bathina Bramaiah, # 1-541- 1153, Shaik Khan Colony Adoni, Kurnool-518301 .....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G, Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr, M. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Not Pressed

¶11

-: O-B-D-EB:-

¶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 of the respondent bank under section 13 of the Act and Rules 8(1) to 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter for short), including /,/)*{rr

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

5A No.4/2025

¶15

possession notice dated 74.71,.2024 in respect of^{SA Schedule} Properties.

¶16

The averments of the application, briefly,^{are that the Applicant} is a^partnership firm, it availed a business^{loan from RespondentNo.1} Bank which got signed certain blank,^{unfllled, stampeddocuments.} The Applicant avers non-d isbursement of^{funds as per sanctioned} terms despite maintaining^repayment obligations;^{theRespondent} Bank issued^possession notice dated^{74.77.2024 without prior NPA} declaration or demand notice u/s 13(2) SARFAESI^{Act. Bank further} infringed Rules 8(1) & 8(2) Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules,} 2002 in affixture of^possession notice on the SA^{schedule property} and^publishing the same in English and^{vernacular newspapers. The} Applicant prays for^quashing the impugned SARFAESI^measures against the schedule^properties through the^present Securitisation Application.

¶17

As Applicant failed to take notice on Respondent No.2 despite ample opportunities, the Securitisation Application was dismissed against R2 vide docket order dated 08.09.2025.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly are that the Respondent Bank sanctioned an overdraft facility of Rs.70 lakhs in 2022; consequent to the Applicant's repayment irregularities, the account was classified as NPA on 26.03.2024, followed by demand notice u/s 13(2) SARFAESI Act dated 26.04.2024, served on 04.05.2024 (per postal tracking), and published in Praga ShaktiTelugu Daily and New Indian Express English Daily on 30.04.2024. Possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 14.77.2024, served, published and affixed the same on secured asset. The respondent bank has strictly followed the due z lJnm - t// ,'ll < -4],]r-_ *)>

¶19

Page 3 of5

¶20

sA No.4l2O25

¶21

procedure contemplated in the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 2002 and therefore the SA is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants reported order may be passed on record. Heard the learned counsel for respondent bank.^perused the material brought on record.

¶23

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondent bank in reiteration of version as in the reply statement submitted that the applicant availed OD facility of Rs.70 lakhs which was renewed in 2023, and the said facility is secured by mortgage of sA schedure property by way of deposit of tiue deeds. GECL facirity of Rs.7.69 lakhs was also sanctioned as per guidelines of Central Government pertaining to Covid-19 pandemic stress release. Since the applicant consistenfly failed to make timely payments, the account became NpA on 26.03.2024 as per RBI guidelines followed by Securitization proceedings by issuing demand notice, possession notice. The notices were served on applicant, published and affixed wherever required. Learned counsel relied on documents including MoDT, as proof of following due procedure of law and sought for dismissal of the SA with costs.

¶24

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶25

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures inctuding possession noiice dated 14.11;2024 issued by the respondent against the SA schedule properties as prayed for?

¶26

ii) To what relief?

¶27

Point No.^(i):

¶28

Admittedly, the Applicant availed the overdraft facitity from the Respondent Bank against mortgage of SA schedule properties and failed to adhere to the repayment schedule. Hence the Respondent tu,,

¶29

PaEe^{4 of5}

¶30

sA No'^4/2025

¶31

Bank's^{action in classifyingthe account as NPA and initiating} ,i*rora,^{measures againstthe secured assets is lawful'}

¶32

The respondent^{bank filed material documents along withreply} statementasproofofcomplianceofdueprocedureoflaw.Noneof the documents^{havebeen disputed by the applicants'Pages16 to 29} ofthematerialpaperannexedtothereplystatementarethe Photostatcopiesofpostalreceiptsandpaperpublicationproving service^{of demand notice similarly' Pages 3O to 42 are the Photostat} copies^{of postal receipts, Postaltrack reports showingdelivery of} possession^{notice dated14} 'rl'2024^{to the applicants' photographs as} proof of affixture^{of possessionntoice on secured properties and} publication of^{the samein Engtishand Telugu (vernacular language)} newspapers^{on 17} 'l:.'20i.4'^{Respondentbank also filed Photostat} copies of^{Memorandumof Deposit of Title Deed evidencingthat the} applicant^{created mortgage over the SA schedulepropertiesto secure} loan facilities^{availedby hlm Thesedocuments amplyprove that the} respondentbankhasfollowedSectionsl3(2),13(4)oftheAct,2002 and Rules^{8(1) and 8(2)of the Rules'2002'}

¶33

In the^{view of above observations'it is concludedthat the} applicant^{has failed to makeout anyvalid ground to set aside the any} of the measures^{initiated by the respondent bank under the Act'} 2002, inctuding^{the impugnedpossession notice dated 14 7l'2024} against the^{SA schedulepropertiesand accordinglySA is liableto be} dismissed.

¶34

Point No.(ii):

¶35

In the^result, the securitisation^{application fails and is hereby} dismlssed.

¶36

Page 5 of 5

¶37

SA No. 4/2o2s

¶38

if any,^shalt t2. Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applications pending'} stand closed.

¶39

13.^{No orderas to costs'}

¶40

communicate^{a copy of this orderto the parties concerned and} upload^{in the official website'}

¶41

(TypedtomydictotionbythePS,corrected,signedondpronouncedbymeintheopencourtonthisthe 'riin aoY of^{FebruorY' 2026)'}

¶42

,' ?*><*Jn

¶43

.,.ⁱ ,t, -Lb..IHs,'J'HEHP,H?

B Venkatalakshmi Traders v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Venkatalakshmi Traders v. Kotak Mahindra 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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)