Dismissed

Sri Sai Enterprises Rep by its Prop Sri Balakrishna v. Protium Finance Limited

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the possession notice and vacate notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank scrupulously followed the statutory procedural requirements, including serving demand notices and appointing an Advocate Commissioner via criminal miscellaneous proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Sri Sai Enterprises Rep by its Prop Sri Balakrishna versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 3OrH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.216 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Balakrishna Vangaveeti, S/o Late Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 41 yes, situated at H. No. 2-2- 1 167 / A/ C, Chaitanya Nagar, Nallakunta, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad district - 500 044.

¶6

Smt Anitha Vangaveeti, w/o Balakrishna Vangaveeti, occ: business, H. No.2-2- 1 167 / A/ C, Chaitany a Nagar, Nallakunta, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad district - 500 044.

¶7

Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Protium Finance Limited, Represented by its authorised officer "Parade view" no.62, Rukmani branch, Lakshmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

Co ica nt

Shri D. Raghavulu

o,;fr&.*g[ T;F

Sri D. Pallavi 07.0s.2026 30.06.2026 30.06.2026

¶16

(sA. No.21612024)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The applicants filed securitisation^{Application under section17 of the} securitisation and Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enforcement} of Security Interest^{Act, 2OO2 (for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the Possession notice dated^{23.04.2024 issued by the respondent in} respect of schedule^property and^{also the noticedated 28.09.2024} issued by the Advocate commissioner^{for vacatingthe schedule} property pursuant to Warrant in Crl.MP.4213/2024^{on the file of} Hon'ble IV Addl CMM, Hyderabad.

¶19

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

¶20

The Applicant No.1 which is a^{Proprietorship firm representedby} applicant no.2 availed cash^{credit facility from the respondent bank to} a tune of Rs.50,00,000/- in 2021.^{The applicantswere regularin} paying the instalments but due to unforeseen^{problems and COVID-19} pandemic the business suffered huge loss and^{could not paysome} instalments. While things stood^{thus, the respondentbank has} classified the account as^{NPA and initiatedproceedings under} SARFAESI Act by issuing^{Possessionnotice dated 23.04.2024.But the} 'w v served on the applicants and it^{was not affixed on the} scn$rle o . The Advocate commissioner^{issued notice dated} 3 ap.g$12@4^{tor the applicantsfor vacatingthe schedule property} ,'Q,6^{nasing on the orders in Crl.l4p.42t3/2024on the file of Hon'ble IV} '2

¶21

(SA.No.21612024)

¶22

Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondent bank has not followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act in issuing the notices. Hence the SA.

¶23

The respondent bank filed reply statement contending that as the applicants failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 31.t2.2023 and thereafter issued demand notice dated LL.0t.2024 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and the same was served on the applicants. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 23.04.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property which was published in two leading daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent bank initiated proceedings under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.Mp.4213/2024 on the file Hon'ble IV Addl CMM, Hyderabad and got appointed Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession. The said Advocate commissioner issued 15 days vacate notice to the applicants. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard the arguments of both Counsels.

¶25

nt for consideration is

¶26

applicants have established any ground for Possession notice dated 23.04.2024 issued by the li tutfB$"ns resfg!$nt bank and also vacate notice dated 28.A9.2024 issued i&1r*A{ffiicate^{Commissionerfor vacating the scheduteproperty?} 3

¶27

(SA. No.21612024)

¶28

ii) To What Relieft

¶29

Point no.a)

¶30

During the course of arguments,^{the Ld counsel for applicantsand} respondent bank reiterated their^{respective versions statedsupra.} There is no dispute regarding^{the fact that the applicantsavailed loan} facility by creating mortgage of^{schedule property and thereafter} committed default and the account^{was classified as NPA, so the} respondent bank issued demand^{notice dated IL.OL.2024.}

¶31

The contention of the applicants^{is that the respondent bank has} not served demand notice and^{possession noticeon the applicantsand} without following the SARFAESI^{Act and the Rules made thereunder} got appointed Advocate Commissioner, who issued^noticedated 28.09.2024 to the applicants and^{the impugned possession notice} dated 23.04.2024 is^{not valid and not binding on the applicants.}

¶32

B. The contention of the^{respondentbank is that the respondent bank} has scrupulously followed the^{procedurelaid down in SARFAESI Act} and Rules made thereunder^{in issuingthe statutorynoticesto the} licants and impugned Possession^{noticedated 23.04.2024and also} ued by the Advocate Commissioner^{on 28.09.2024are} valid and binding on the applicants.^{Furthercontention} * dlNtt?9Fesooi nt is that the applicant obtained^{interim orders from} ide order dated 08.10.2024^{in IA.No.2535/2024 but the} iled to comply the orders.

¶33

¶34

lsA.No.2t6/20241

¶35

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that on 11.01.2024 the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants demanding them to pay entire amount due within 60 days. The said notice is received by the applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements. Thereafter the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 23.04.2024 to the applicants and the said possession notice was published in the newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the respondent. The said possession notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the respondent bank. Thus, the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule g(1) and 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice.

¶36

After issuing the possession notice, the respondent bank being secured creditor is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 14 0f 1u.|:3-:$[OESI^{act by approaching the concerned ChiefJudiciat} iYfr"ting appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking ;icat pBs'gssion of the schedule property. Accordingly the 3 n ffiic{fts ri&ilc.r.rve .4213/2o24on the fite of Hon,bte rv Addt cMM, rhe Ld chier Metropolitan Masistrate after L)*Hl€#"."0"0.

¶37

(sA.No.215/2024)

¶38

considering the^{record, was pleasedto appoint Advocate commissioner} for taking^{physical possession of the scheduleproperty' The said} Advocate Commissioner^{issued impugnedvacate noticedated} 28.Og.2024 to the^{Applicantsdirecting them to vacatethe schedule} premises. So the said notice^{issued by the Advocate Commissioneris} perfectly legal, valid and^{bindingon the applicants' So' I see no} illegality or irregularity^{in the proceedingsinitiated by the Respondent} bank for taking^{physicalpossession of the schedule property through} AdvocatecommissionerafterissuingPossessionnotice.Sothereare no merits in the^{SA and hence SA is liable to be dismissed'This point} is answered accordinglY.

¶39

Point no.ii)

¶40