Allowed

Mr Syed Shakir Hussain v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT8 Sept 2026SA/240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's securitisation application challenging a possession notice. The court relied on the bank's failure to file a reply or produce documents proving strict compliance with SARFAESI Act provisions, thus quashing the measures. The bank was directed to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was allowed, setting aside the Possession Notice dated 25.02.2026, and the Respondent Bank was directed to proceed afresh.

Mr Syed Shakir Hussain versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Service and Employment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.240/2026

¶4

Mr.Syed Shakir Hussain S/o.Syed Jafar Hussain, Gender: Male, Age About:^43Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-5 -74/lL, Aravind Nagar, Jagitial, Karimnagar. Cell No.934852t846. E-MAIL ID : [email protected]

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kotak Mahindra Bank^Ltd., Situated at:^{Registered Office At27 BKC, C27,} G Bloack, Bandra^{Kurla ComPlex,} Mumbai 400 051 Rep by its Authorised Officer..

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Parties^:

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the ResPondents Reserued on

¶11

: Sri M. Rathan Singh : Exparte :02.09.2026 :07.09.2026 : O8.O9.2026

BSSrr

(SA. No. 240/2026)

ORDER

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act, 2002 (SARFAES| Act, 2002) challenging the Possession Notice dated 25.022026 issued by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act.2002

¶16

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the applicant availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bank. Due to financial problems, the Applicants could not pay the loan amount. The respondent Bank failed to issue/serve the Demand notice and possession Notice to the applicant. The Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not pubrished in two reading dairy newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under rure g(1) and (2). Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank underthe SARFAESI Act,2002. Hence the SA.

¶17

Notice served to Respondent, no representation, cafled absent and hence the Respondent is set exparte on 02.09.2026.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and perused the material brought on record.

¶19

A Now the points

¶20

i) grounds for issued by the

2W6

(5A.No.240l2026)

ii) To what relie?

Point No.(i)

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the Possession Notice daled 25.02.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and producing necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured assets. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. ln the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in issuing the Possession Notice daled 25.02.2026 against the schedule properties, I hold that the Applicant have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶26

Point No.(iili

¶27

ln the result, S.A.24012026 is allowed.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Qecuqitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession.Not[L Udt6d?5 .02.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule propert!. ikri',the^{RespondentBank is} at^liberty

¶29

[0sfP20& *
rI
T
as,
!:,/

¶30

(SA.No. 240/2026)

¶31

to proceed afresh^{against the sA schedule property to recover theirdues} by duly following the^{provisrons of SARFAESIAct' 2002 and Rules} thereunder.

¶32

The lnterlocutory^{Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposedof. No} order as to costs.

¶33

¶34

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶35

(Dictated to the Priuate^{Secretqry, transcibedbgher,} ^co:Tected,^{signed andpronounced bg me tn} ih" op.n court on^{this the Ovh dayof September' 2026)'}

¶36

sd/-
(G. GOPICHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

r xuii COPY
-ffil 121^
A3sf. Regt!

¶38

Mr Syed Shakir Hussain v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Syed Shakir Hussain v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan