The DrTB-I at Hyderabad allowed an application filed by a borrower to quash a Pre-Sale Notice issued by Axis Bank. The bank failed to comply with SARFAESI Act provisions to justify the notice, leading to its setting aside.
Quashed the Pre-Sale Notice dated 25.02.2026; permitted Respondent to proceed afresh after following proper procedure.
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 RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1 6TH DAY OF JULY,2C-26
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.2 43/2026
Mr. Murugu Sadasiva Naidu, S/o Murugu Kullayappa, D.No. 3-36,Gunduvari Palli, Talupula Mandal, Peddannavari Palle, Ananthapuram - 515 581
... Applicant
Versus
Axis Bank. Ltd., Rep by its Authorized Officer, H.No. l-441-12-44-1, Prakash Nagar, Nagarajupalli Villag€, 1"t ward, Kadapa - 516 001
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant Respondent
: Sm/. K. Sutetha : Exparte
ORDER
application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed dent Bank against the security of schedule problems, the Applicant could not pay the full of Rs.15,00,000/- had already been paid by the
Applicant towards the loan interest. The Respondent bank failed to serve the Demand notice and Possession Notice to the applicant. The Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not published in two leading daily newspapers. Thereafter the Respondent also issued Pre-Sale notice against the schedule property without following the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made there under. Hence the SA.
3
Notice served to Respondent, no representation, called absent and hence the Respondent is set exparte on 15.072026.
Point No.(il
Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the absence of any material evidence to show that the
-''ii'".il"noe'.fi
,'?,' has duly complied with the mandated provisions of '(fu*-,1#
SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in issuing Pre-Sale Notice dated 25.02.2026, I hold that the Applicant has 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.
Point No.fii):-
(Dctated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed bA her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 16,h daA of Julu, 2026).
sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
-"<br>/#.
.6\ ffi
{.' €$
1 ii rJBS
"t111
a'o:t:%t
Asst.ifglt'a'
D9T.I, HY'DERABAD,
tb,,rty
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the Pre-Sale Notice dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murugu Sadasiva Naidu
Axis Bank. Ltd.
Gumma Sri Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
