Dismissed

Jerpla Ramjee v. Uco Bank

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicants challenged possession notices issued after alleged procedural defaults. The Tribunal found the bank followed proper procedure via newspaper publication and upheld the notices, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application SA.No.235/2025 dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of.

Jerpla Ramjee versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.235 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Jerpla Ramjee

¶6

S/o Sri Redya Jerpla, male, Aged 54 years, occ: Doctor, r/o Flat no.301, Sri Sai Complex,

¶7

Road no.5, Vaidehi nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 70.

¶8

Smt Jerpla Ramavath Bhagya Lakshmi, female, aged 43 years, W/o Sri Jerpla Ramjee, occ: service, R/o flat no.301, Sri Sai Complex, Road no.5, Vaidehi nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶9

Applicants

¶10

Versu s

¶11

UCO Bank, Abid Circle branch, #5-8-600 to 604, 1st floor, Mubarak bazar, Abid Circle, Hyderabad - 500 001, Telangana Represented by its Chief Manager Cum Authorised officer

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant

¶15

Shri J. Narendra Kumar

¶16

pondent Smt A. Nandini Reddy 08.05.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026 3 n JUll ,rr$ Uploaded in we 30.06.2026 ii'&,---.a# W;mtP' x9,,

¶17

(SA.No.23sl202s)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The applicant filed Securitisation^{Application under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enforcement} of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the Possession notice dated 08.11.2024^{and notice dated17.05.2025} issued by the Advocate commissioner^{for takingphysicalpossessionof} the schedule^property.

¶20

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

¶21

The Applicants no.1 & 2 are^{husbandand wife who are the absolute} owners of application schedule^{property and availedmortgage loan by} mortgaging the schedule^{property in favour of respondent bank. But} the respondent bank initiated^{proceedingsand issued demandnotice} under section 13(2) of the^{SARFAESIAct and also possession notice} under section 13(4) of^{SARFAESIAct. But the possession notice was} neither affixed on the schedule^{property nor published in two leading} newspapers as stipulated under^{sectionB(1) and 8(2) of Security} Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.^{The respondentbank issued} demand notice and^{possession notice but not served on the applicant.} ndent bank initiated^proceedings before^{Hon'ble Chief} Ranga Reddy by filing Crl.MP.No.63^{and 64/2025} of Advocate Commissioner.^{The advocate} EBinmissiorrE'rirvisited the schedule^{property and issued notice dated} ri..' .i

¶22

(SA. No.23sl202s)

¶23

17.05.2025 for vacating the schedule property and same is not valid. Hence the SA.

¶24

The respondent bank filed reply statement contending that the applicants availed term loan limit of Rs.1,13,00,000/- bV mortgage of schedule property and deposited the title deeds in favour of Respondent bank. The applicant no.1 also availed term loan limit of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by creating charge of hypothecation of all plant and machinery in favour of respondent bank. As the applicants failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 29.05.2024 and thereafter issued demand notice dated 28.O8.2024 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the said notice was unserved on the applicants. So the Demand notice was published in two leading newspapers on 05.09.2024. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 08.tt.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property which was published in "Vijaya Kranthi and Metro India" daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent bank initiated proceedings Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.MP.63/2025 and 64/2025 on the file Hon'ble Chief ludicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy t LB nagar and got appointed Advocate commissioner for I possession. The respondent bank also filed r/20 before this Tribunal for recovery of 3 o*J.{l!oUBr,rJ Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. tt

¶25

(SA. No.23sl202s)

¶26

Heard the arguments of both Counsels.

¶27

Now the point for consideration is

¶28

i) Whether the applicants have established any^groundfor challenging fhe Possession^notice dated^{08.11.2024and notice} dated 17.05.2025 issued by the^Advocate commissioner^for \

¶29

vacating the schedule property?

¶30

ti) To What RelieP

¶31

Point no.i)

¶32

During the course of arguments, the^{Ld counsel for applicantsand} respondent bank reiterated their respective^{versions as stated supra.} There is no dispute regarding the fact that applicants^{no.1 and2} availed loan facilities of Rs.1,13,00,000/^{and Rs.1,50,00,000/-from} the respondent bank and created mortgage of^{scheduleproperty and} thereafter the applicants committed default and^{the loan account was} classified as NPA by the respondent bank on^29.05.2024.

¶33

The contention of the applicants is that the respondent bank^has not served demand notice and^possession notice on^{the applicantsand} ings for taking physical^possession of the^property te commissioner by filing necessary application before on'ble X Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad^who ed t7.05.2025 to the applicants which is not^valid on the applicants.

¶34

(SA. No.23sl202s)

¶35

¶36

The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and so the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 17.05.2025 is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.

¶37

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices, has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that after classifying the loan account as NpA on 29.05.2024, the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants. The said notice was sent through Registered post but however it was returned unserved. So the respondent bank published the demand notice in Telugu and English Newspapers and so, there is valid service of demand notice on the applicants. As there was no response to the said demand notice, the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 08.11.2024 to the applicants and the said possession notice was published in the newspapers^.'Vijaya Kranthi Telugu and Metrq India" English newspaper. Thus there is valid on notice on the applicants. s? . 10. i 3 t) itlN rffier :lng the possession notice, the respondent bank is 5 t liberty to aBp"5oach the concerned Chief ludicial Magistrate seeking j'''.: ,df^{Advocate Commissionerfor taking} physical possession YBPx

¶38

(SA.No.23sl202s)

¶39

of the schedule^property. Accordingly the^{Respondentfiled} Crl.MP.63/2025 and 64/2025^{on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior civil} Judge cum Chief Judicial^{Magistrate,Ranga Reddydistrict. The Ld} Chief Judicial Magistrate after^{considering the record, was pleased to} appoint Advocate commissioner^{for taking physical possession of the} schedule property. Admittedly,^{the said AdvocateCommissioner} issued impugned vacate^{noticedatedt7.05'2025to the Applicants to} vacate the schedule^property within^{15 days from the date of notice'} So the said notice issued^{by the Advocate Commissioner is perfectly} legal, valid and binding on the applicants.^{So, I see no ground} warranting interference of^{this Tribunalwith the notice issued by the} Advocate commissioner for^{takingphysical possessionof the schedule} property. So there are no merits in the SA and^{henceSA is liable to} be dismissed. This^{pointis answered accordingly.}

¶40

Point no.ii)

¶41

In the result, 5A.235/2025^{is dismissed.}

¶42

The Interlocutory Applications,^{pending if any, shall standdisposedof.} as to costs.

¶43

;r--.ffi::,, o"ry^{or this order to the parties concerned'} ,:#WrWZTlgS*rtl;0,^{her, corrected,sisned and pronounced bv me in theopen couft on thisthe}

¶44

','i o.T.//

¶45

TRuEpoP sdlo#fiiYi-snnaon' 6

Jerpla Ramjee v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerpla Ramjee v. Uco Bank

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

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry