Dismissed

Mr Sanjay Sambrani v. Union Bank of India

DRT1 Jun 2026SA/210/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner to vacate schedule property under the SARFAESI Act. The Court upheld the validity of the possession notice, finding that the Respondent Bank validly served statutory notices and followed prescribed procedures.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application (SA. No. 210/2025) was dismissed; the interlocutory applications pending are disposed of; no order as to costs.

Mr Sanjay Sambrani versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lsr DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.21O ol2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr, Sanjay Sambrani, S/o S. Sridhar, male, Aged about 34 years, occ: business, R/o flat no.501, 5th floor, Raghavendra enclave, Ex-Service Men Colony, Vijayanagar, Hyderabad.

¶7

Mrs, Sirisenagandla Prema Latha, W/o Mr. Sanjay Sambrani, female, Aged about 32 years, occ: housewife, R/o flat no.501, 5th floor, Raghavendra enclave, Ex-service Men colony, Vijayanagar, Hyderabad.

¶8

Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Union Bank of India, Represented by its authorised officer, Asset Recovery Branch, Situated at lst floor, SR nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Parties: Counsel for Applicant ri B. Pavan Kumar Counsel for Respond geetha Jaiswal Orders reserved on 6 Pronounced on 1: ,l[t# Uploaded in

¶13

(sA.No.210/202s)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The applicant filed Securitisation Application under Section¹⁷ of^the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial^Assets and^Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002^(for short^{"SARFAESIAct) challenging} the notice dated 03.05.2025 issued by the^{Advocatecommissioner in} Crl.MP,No.223/2025 on the file of^{Hon'ble VI Addl} Chief^ludicial Magistrate, Hyderabad for taking^{physical possessionof the schedule} property.

¶16

The averments made in the application in brief are^{as follows:}

¶17

The Applicant availed housing loan to a tune of^{Rs.40.00 lakhs from} the respondent bank on 06.08.2010 and^{created mortgage in respect} of schedule property. Due to heavy^loss in^{business, the applicant} was unable to^pay EMI'S, so the account was^{classifiedas NPA on} 09.08.2018. Thereafter, the^{respondentbank issuedPossession} Notice dated 25.04.2024 but the^respondent bank^{failed to issue} demand notice as mentioned in the said^{possession notice. The} respondent bank filed Cr|.MP.22312025 on^{the file} of^{Hon'bleVI Addl} Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad^{and obtainedwarrant for taking} physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissionel, fqg:.'Pa*-Pssion^{notice was neither affixedon the} rr';.^{1",i.\ir 'Si;"1} l,- sc hedulef;r$oerty'+sor'PUH[ted neoutVli;;pertt'Btpi'U[0Ned in^{two leadinsnewspapersas} stipurafl;* ,0.;r;Y":::"'t\ and 8(2)^{or securitv Interest} 'e," "",j^{lr#3, !ffir. Sjjr the notice dated03.05.2025issued} ,;"t

¶18

(SA. No.210/202s)

¶19

by the Advocate commissioner for vacating the^{schedule propeftyis} not legal. Hence the SA.

¶20

The respondent bank filed reply statement^{contendingthat the} applicants after availing housing loan from the^{respondentbank} committed default in repaying the^{loan amount and the respondent} has classified the loan account as^NPA on^{09.08.2018as per RBI} guidelines. Thereafter the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 03.02.2024 under section¹³⁽²⁾ of^{SARFAESI Act and it was} personally served to the applicants. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated^{25.04.2024 under section 13(4) ofthe} SARFAESI Act and it was^{sent throughregistered post and the said} notice was^published in^{"Financial expressand Mana Telangana" daily} newspapers and the said^{possessionnotice was also affixedon the} schedule property. Thereafter the^{respondent bank initiated} proceedings Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act by filing} Crl.MP.223/2025 on the file^{Hon'ble VI Addl' Chief Judicial Magistrate,} Hyderabad and^got appointed^{Advocate commissionerfor taking} physical possession of schedule^{property.Hence the noticedated} 03.0s.202s the Advocate commissioner^{is perfectly valid and} bindi ng on respondent bank has followed all^the pro( lrji'es under the SARFAESI Act,2002. )( Hen Jnlsdl#6rff[O oe 4. Hea

¶21

(sA.No.210/202s)

¶22

Now the point for consideration is

¶23

i) Whether the applicants have established any ground for challenging the Notice dated 03.05.2025 issued by the Advocate commissioner for vacating the schedule property?

¶24

ii) To What RelieP

¶25

Point no.i)

¶26

During the course of arguments, the Ld counsel for applicants and respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra. There is no dispute regarding the fact that applicants availed housing loan from the respondent by creating mortgage in respect of schedule property and thereafter committed default and the loan account was classified as NPA by the respondent bank.

¶27

The contention of the applicants is that without issuing demand notice the respondent bank issued^possession notice to the applicants and the Possession notice was neither affixed on the^schedule property nor published in newspapers. Further contention of applicants is that respondent bank initiated^proceedings before^Hon'ble VI AddI I Magistrate for appointment of Advocate possession or the schedute propertv ffi#Brysicat issued,noErteS*"d $3'tOS.ZOZS^{to the applicants which is not} -.^{0tJUNrttT6 *il} ft^{nl not SinOiriU"ontlrc,;pnnlicants.}

¶28

ffi,*"or,'W

¶29

(sA.No.210/202s)

¶30

B. The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupurousry followed the procedure laid down in sARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the demand notice as contemplated under section 13(2) and^possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and that the possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was published in two leading newspapers. Thus the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner for vacating the schedule property is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.

¶31

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices, has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that after classifying the loan account as NpA on 09.0g.2019, the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 03.02.2024 under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants. The said notice was received by the applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the applicants. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued possession notice dated applicants and the said possession notice WAS post as evidenced by the postal ack possession notice was also affixed on itjli 2"020 the property as in the copies of photographs filed by the id Possession notice was also published

¶32

(sA.No.210/202s)

¶33

in Telugu and English newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the respondent bank. Thus it is clear that the respondent bank followed the SARFAESEI Act and Rules B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the applicant.

¶34

After issuing the statutory possession notice to the applicants, the respondent bank approached the concerned Hon,ble VI Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent filed Crl.MP.223/2025 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the record, was pleased to appoint Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Admittedly, the said Advocate Commissioner issued impugned vacate notice dated 03.05.2025 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property within 15 days from the date of notice, So the said notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants. So, .round^{warranting interference of this Tribunal} n ,n"rl(,&-B$hqe Advocate commissioner ror takins prrysica/ fdssessio$$f tne ddr$ure property. so there are no merits i" th"iU.nJ^1nCHt"ZUn ,,^jJf," to be dismissed, rhis point is --- -rtE -,^, ^^J' un'*"'ffiI{S# eoint no.\pinfl{;}7

¶35

¶36

(SA.No.210/202s)

¶37

In the result, SA.2L0/2025 is dismissed.

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of June, 2026)

¶41

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

crq*N
t $ 'e
olJUNzozt :
Biqh,-rW

¶43

Mr Sanjay Sambrani v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sanjay Sambrani v. Union Bank of India

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

Sri Venkateswara Rice Traders and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Mohammed Nizam uddin versus Protium Finance Limited

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Pottipati Sivareddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Musham Ravi Kumar

Kondaveeti Seetha versus State Bank of India