Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated on an application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court found the bank followed statutory procedures, including notification and publication, and dismissed the application.
Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.206,/2023
... Applicants
Versus
Union Bank of India, The Authorized Officer Matampally branch, D.No. 1-30, Main Road, Mattampalli, Suryapet-508204.
... Respondent
C ouns el fo r the Appli cant s Counselfor Respondent
: Mr B.Sreeniuasa Reddg ; Sri A. Snniuas
Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on
:21.11.2025 : O5.O1.2O26 : 05.01.2O26
ORDER
Possession Notice dt. 17.05.2023 in respect of the schedule propert5r and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicant No.l is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Fertilizer and Pesticides at Suryapet and availed cash credit facilities from the Respondent and the bank obtained signatures of the Applicants on the blank documents.. Due to Covid-19, the Applicants ran into temporary liquidly crunch and could not pay some instalments. The Respondent bank issued demand notice dt.12.12.2o22 by classi$,ing the loan accounts of the Applicants as NPA. Without considering the substantial amounts paid by the Applicants, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.l7.OS.2O23 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. The schedule propert5r was not offered as securit5r to the Bank towards UGECL facility mentioned in the demand notice. Hence the SA.
,j(' 0 5 JAil 2020*
Potat .t\Io.(i):-
During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
*
5 ,tau 42-5
4
Potnt No.(ll)t
(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, correded, signed andpronounced bA me in the open court on this the Sth dag of January, 2026)
sd/(G.q)Pr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
ffi%
; o __s iAil zr.zF :
,S-. ^::
'%#'
C:u:+qY"
Acst FleE sirrr
DPT.I. HYgEGJ.AAD.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether applicants have established valid grounds to set aside the possession notice dated 17.05.2023 issued by the respondent?
To what relief?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds
Mr. Rathikindi Saidulu
Mrs. Rathikindi Pushpalatha
Union Bank of India
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
