Dismissed

Komaravelli Sridhar v. State Bank of India

DRT7 Jul 2026SA/227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged possession notice under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, alleging illegal declaration of NPA and violation of procedure. Debt Recovery Tribunal held that bank followed statutory procedure including service by registered post and newspaper publication. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to nullify the possession notice was dismissed as it had no merit.

Komaravelli Sridhar versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 7TH DAYOFJULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.227./2c25

¶5

1 . Komaravelli Sridhar, S/o Sri Shankaraiah, Occ:business, H.No.7-46, Main Road, Gajwel-SO2 278.

¶6

Komaravelli shankaraiah, S/o Pentaiah, Occ:business, H.No.7-46, Main Road, Gajewel-SO2 278.

... Applicants

Versus

State Bank of Bank,

Rep. by its Authorized Officer Gajwel branch, Siddipet District . .. Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

: Sri V. Pramod Kumar : Si G. Prabhakar Sharma

¶13

Reserued on

¶14

:02.07.2026

¶15

Pronounced on :07.07.2026 Uploaded to the website on :08.O7.2026

¶16

:07.07.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Application is filed u/s. 17 of the Securit ization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securit5z Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) charlenging the possession Notice dt.08.0s.202s issued by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property and to null and void.

¶19

Application in brief are as follows: Asset backed Loan facility ofRs. 1O lakhs from Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor and

¶20

created mortgage against the^{scheduleproperty. The Applicantswere} regulariy paying the loan instalments^{even duringthe Covid pandemic but} the Bank illegally declared the^{loan accountof the Applicantsas NPA and} initiated proceedings under the^{provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.The} Bank failed to serve demand^{notice and possession notice to the Applicants} and so, the said notices^{are not legal and valid. Hence the SA.}

¶21

The Respondent Bank filed^{their Reply denying all the adverse allegations} madeintheSAandcontendedthatthel.tApplicantisthesonof2"d Applicant and the 1"t^{Applicant availed Asset BackedAgri loan(overdraft)} of Rs.10 lakhs from the^{RespondentBank whereasthe Applicant No.2} stood as guarantor^{and created mortgageagainst the scheduleproperty'} Thereafter,ApplicantNo.lcommitteddefaultinrepayingtheloandues and so, the Bank^{classified the loanaccountas NPA on 30.1 1.2024 as per} theguidelinesofRBlandissueddemandnoticedt.ls.02.2o2'andthe Applicants duly acknowledged^{the said notice' Thereafter, the Respondent} issuedpossessionnoticedt.os.05.2025andthesaidnoticewassenttothe Applicants through^{Regd.Postand the same was published in Financial} ExpressandManaTelanganadailynewspapersandalsoaflixedonthe scheduieproperty.Thus,theBankfollowedtheprocedurecontemplated undertheprovisionsofsARFAEslAct,2oo2andRulesmadethereunder and there are^{no deviations. AccordinglyRespondentBankprayed to} dismiss the SA.

¶22

and Ld. Counsel^{for the ResPondent}

¶23

for the Applicants brought on record.

¶24

*No\tlF ffinffi[ftat for consideration^are .r. il tohether haue established^{any ualidgrounds} fo, Possession^{Noticedt.08.05.2025 issued by} the

¶25

against the schedule ProPertg?

¶26

ii. To uhat relief?

¶27

Point JVo.(if:-

¶28

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

¶29

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant No. 1 availed Overdraft facility from the Respondent and Applicant No.2 created mortgage against the schedule property.

¶30

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the bank illegally declared the loan account of the Applicant No.1 as NPA and the^{Respondentfailed} to follow the procedure contemplated under the^{provisionsof SARFAESI} Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing^{demandnotice and} possession notice to the Applicants and so, the said^proceedings are^not legal and vaiid.

¶31

But the Respondent contended that the Applicant No.1 availed loan^from the Respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in^{repaying the} loan dues so, the loan account was classified as NPA as^per the^guidelines of RBI and thereafter, the Bank issued demand^{notice and possession} notice to the Applicants by duly following the^procedure as^contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2^{and Rules madethereunder} and there are no violations.

¶32

ntention, the Respondent Bank filed material th* Reply Iiled by them. As per the said material e Respondent Bank issued demand notice

¶33

dt.18.o2.2o25 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 andsent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.Post and the Applicants received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. However, the Applicants have not raised any objections to the said notice. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.08.05.2025 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies ofthe paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs frled by the Bank. Thus it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt.08.05.2025 u/s 13(a) of the Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶34

Polnt I,Io.(tl)r

¶35

In the result, SA 227 125 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

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

¶37

corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open

¶38

$ 7 JUL 'tPE sd/-
(G. GOPI CHANDI
PRESIDING OFI.ICER
.rT COPY
kup
() 8A ,.J1N- yb
4
D] HYDERAEAD.

Komaravelli Sridhar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komaravelli Sridhar v. State 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Life Care Hospital

State Bank of India versus M/S. Radesh Trading Company

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Madhi Constructions Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Vivekanand

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nagaraju Shiva

State Bank of India versus Mr. Rajesh Darla