Applicants challenged an advocate commissioner appointment under SARFAESI Act S. 14 alleging non-compliance with notice rules. The Tribunal observed that a prior similar application was dismissed on merits and applied res judicata principles, finding no fresh merit to warrant interference.
Application SA 218/25 dismissed with 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_ I AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE IST DAYOFJUNE, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.21a,/2025
. .. Applicants
Versus
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Representative Stressed Assets Recovery Branch(SARB) Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-SOO 095.. ... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicants : Si M.Saikiran Counsel for Respondent : Sri C. Sreedlnr
Reserued on :07.O5.2O26 Pronounced on :01.06.2026 Uploaded on :02.06.2026
ORDER
Applicant No. t herein as borrower and Applicants No.2&3 as coborrowers availed loan of Rs.24 lakhs from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage of schedule property. In the year 2019, husband of the Applicant No.1 who is father of Applicant No.2 passed away and the Applicants were in dire situation to meet the ends. Later due to Covid- 19, the Applicants could not pay some instalments. In the meanwhile, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.15.06.2o23 and after issuance of the said notice, the Applicants deposited certain amounts with the bank to regularize the loan account. But all of a sudden, Respondent Bank along with advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and demanded the Applicants to hand over the physical possession of schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The Respondent failed to serve statutory notices to the Applicants. The impugned possession notice dt.15.O6.2O23 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the scheduleproperty as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA.
/)
The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed housing loan of Rs.21,40,OO0/- from State Bank of Hyderabad against the creation of mortgage in respect ofthe scheduleproperty and thereafter,in view of the merger of State Bank of Hyderabad with SBI, theRespondent bank herein became the lender. After availing the loan facilities, Applicants committed default in repayment of loan dues andso, the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicants as NPAon 2l as per the guideline of RBI. Accordingly, theRespondent notice dt. 17.01.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post. espondent issued possession notice dt. 15.06.2023 and sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the published in two daily newspapers and the sarne was 2
also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through advocate commissioner. Thus the Respondent has duly followed the procedure and there are no violations. The Applicants earlier Iiled SA 455123 challenging the sale notice dt.04. lL.2O23 issued by the Bank and the said SA was dismissed on 26.05.2025. After dismissal of the said SA, the Applicants filed the present SA. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA. 4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.
Point .I\Io.(i):-
As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, the secured creditor i approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief ing physical possession of the secured asset. In demand notice and possession notice to the ..' ;'..:i Apflicanf,s,- the Respon secured creditor, approached Ld.CMM, aigiu.i L z J"U fl o2B?&n AESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.38/25 rtr "ft commissioner for taking physical possession
of the schedule propert5z. Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri 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 Applicants to vacate the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid.
Potnt No.(ii)t
(Dictated to the P.s, transcibed bg her, corrected., signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the ld dag of June,2026)
sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
,A<br>e-""q
itN ,^
r . 0tlultzozn *
<br>'jiJ
o.#r
' ,ft^x
&r'@
rfffH",
o#l{kiriqsddno
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicants have valid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession under S. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through an advocate commissio
Whether the Applicants are entitled to re-agitate the issue of non-receipt of demand and possession notices in the present Applicant given the dismissal of an earlier similar application on merits?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Kondaveeti Seetha
Kondaveeti Chandramouli
State Bank of India
Gummadigopichand
C.Sreedarn
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
