Dismissed

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra v. Union Bank of India

DRT4 May 2026SA/211/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The applicant challenged proceedings for physical possession initiated by a bank via an Advocate Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the bank duly followed statutory notice procedures under Sections 13(2) and 13(a) and the Security Interest Rules, 2002, finding no merit in the challenge and dismissing t

What did the court decide?

Application SA.211/2025 dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THISTHE 4TH DAY OF MAY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.211 /2025

¶5

M r. Ravulapally Ravichandra S/o R. Veeranna, aged 43 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.22 -8-99 / B / C, Doctors Colony, Deshaipet, Warangal-506 006

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Nakkalagutta Branch, Situated at D.No. 1-8-559, Main Road, Near Water Tank, Hanamkonda-506 O01 ... Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Si M.G.Prakash Counsel for Respondent : Si Momin Mohd".Rafiq Reserued on : 13.O3.2O26 Pronounced on :04.05.2026 Uploaded on :06.05.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.48/25 pursuant to the possession notice dt.12.O3.2025 to the same as illegal and void.

¶11

made in the application, in brief, are that: 0 4 tg,Ys 4ADpricEr availed Housing loan of Rs.40 lakhs from the st the mortgage of schedule property and regularly

¶12

paying the instalments but during Covid-19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and thereafter, the Applicant restarted the business and requested the Bank to regularize the loan account. But without considering the same, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA on 29.12.2024. Thereafter, without serving demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent obtained orders in Crl.M.P.No.48l25 on the file of Ld.CJM, Warangal for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶13

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed housing loan of Rs.4O lakhs from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property. In view of the default committed by the Applicant, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA on 29.12.2024 and issued demand notice dt.30.12.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.12.03.2025 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. nd the same was published in Eenadu and Indian Express daily iiiiw$Abtqq and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule ffir.;lriffio".quently,^{the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the} SXi<peEsl a.h 2oo2 for takine^{phvsicaipossession} of the schedule B 4 flildpeftffi to the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal in Thus the Respondent has duly followed the

¶14

procedure and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the

¶16

Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. uhether the Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for challenging tle proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of tlrc schedule property u/s 14 of tlle SARFAES/ Act, 2002 througlt aduocate commissioner?

¶19

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶20

Point JVo.(il:-

¶21

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

¶22

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶23

ontention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without

¶24

e@11r"otice and possession notice, straightaway, initiated

¶25

¶26

tu physical possession of the schedule property $t*"^i&t"

¶27

¶28

(, r,[:ffiriffi:],i1";"...::'il'"".,i1.":":::.:::.*-,:;,:,.1':; ,\i

¶29

\qrfl the schedule property are null and void. \Lr'' 3

¶30

36Ht-,%ir ru,

¶31

Per contra, Respondent contended that after availing the loan, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the loan agreement and so, the loan account was classified as NPA and the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶32

To substantiate their contention, 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 as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.30.I2.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements liled by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.12.03.2025 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. 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 property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Bnforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice

¶33

6THa sions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after 0^ig",imm.afif sion notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, lhe secured credit is at liberty to approach the concerned District f Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and

¶34

possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.48l25 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Warangal, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice. So, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property are perfectly legal and valid.

¶35

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s \4 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶36

Point No.(ii):-

¶37

In the result, SA 2lll2025 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

Consequently, 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 P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶41

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Dpr"r,;r'itr;#;,

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra 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

Bejugam Veerabadhram versus Indian Overseas Bank

Madala Venkata Srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India

Mr Dharavath Ramachandru versus Canfin Homes Limited

Gollurri Gopal versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S Sindhu Textiles