This single judge application allowed the applicant's challenge against a Possession Notice issued by HDFC Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal quashed the notice as the bank failed to file a reply or produce documents proving strict compliance with Section 17 and applicable rules.
The application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dated 13.03.2026.
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_ I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER.2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.212/2026
S Charishma(F), WoEllanti DharaniKumar, Aged: about 37 Years, Occ: Not Known, R/ o: #4-26, Rachapalem, VTC Puttur, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh-5 1 7583, Ph: 9100456888, Mail id : [email protected].
... Applicant
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited, Retail Portfolio Management, #3-6-310, Hyderguda Road, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500029, Rep. by its Authorized Officer..
... Respondent
Counsel for the Parties : Counsel for the Applicant : G. Poornima Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Exparte Reserued on : 18.08.2026 Pronounced on : O1.O9.2026 Upload in utebsite on :01.09.2026
jr ,. , ,.r L -.
i
:
Y''
_.:.l: i,^
''i:..': :'
(SA.No.21212025)
ORDER
(SA.No.212l2026)
To what relief?
Point No.fi)
b. The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the Possession Notice dated 13.03.2026 issued by the Respondent against theschedule property. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed tojustify their action by filing Reply and producing necessary material documentsto provethat the Bank has strictly followed theprovisions ofSARFAESIAct and Rules framed thereunder whileproceeding against thesecured assets.The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contestingthe matter even after giving several opportunities andfailed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegationsof the Applicant. ln the absence of any material evidence to show that theRespondent Bankhas duly complied with the mandatedprovisions of SARFAESI Act andRules, 2002 in issuing the Possession Notice dated13.03.2026 against the schedule properties, I hold that the Applicant have made a casefor quashing the measures initiated by the Respondentagainstthe SA scheduleproperty under theprovisions of the SARFAESIAct and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.
Point No.fii):-
8
Application is allowed bY setting 13.032026 issued by the Respondent ,the RespondentBank is at libertY
(sA.No. 21212026)
to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder.
(Dictated to the Priuate secretara, transcibed ba heL corrected., signed and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the Ol.t dag of Setember, 2026).
sd/-
(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER "etrHb ,#1i,l,$ffii;oo'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds to quash the Possession Notice issued under the SARFAESI Act due to alleged procedural non-compliance.
What relief should be granted in view of the Respondent Bank's failure to justify its action or produce necessary material documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S Charishma
HDFC Bank Limited
Sri Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
