Dismissed

Ananthoju Venkatesh v. Rbl Bank Limited

DRT1 Jan 2026SA/245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank’s possession notice and appointment of an advocate commissioner under Section 14, holding that statutory notice procedures were duly followed and no illegality was found.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 was dismissed as there were no merits to challenge the bank’s possession proceedings.

Ananthoju Venkatesh versus Rbl Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE IST DAYOFJANUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.245,/2C.24

¶5

1 .Ananthoju Venkatesh

¶6

S/o A.Anjaiah, aged 50 years, Occ:Gold smith, R/o ff.wo.O_iS_+OS, Sanjeevaiah Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue, Nizamabad-503001

¶7

Ananthoju Vijayalaxmi, W /o A. Venkatesh, Aged 45 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No.6-15-405, Sanjeevaiah Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue, Nizamabad-503001

¶8

Ananthoju Ramesh, S/o A.Vcnkatesh, aged 30 years, Occ:gold. smith, R/o H.wo.O_ t S_+bS, Sanjeevaiah Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue Nizamabad-Soiooi---'

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

M/s RBL Bank Ltd.

¶12

Rep. by its Authorized officer 6-3-865, Ground floor, My Home Jupally, Opp. Green park Hotel, Greenland, Hyderaba-SOo 016

¶13

RBL BanK Ltd., :Regd. office 21 1"i Shahupuri, Kolha

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Si Shrauan Kumar Raai Si Viuek Jain

¶16

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶17

:28.11.2O25 : O1.O1.2O26 :02.O1.2026

¶18

-:oRpER:-

¶19

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, Nizamabad in CrlM.P.No.2l4l24 consequent to the possession notice u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶20

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶21

The Applicant No. I is the main borrower and Applicants No.2 & 3 are the wife and son of the Appricant No. I who are co-applicants and the Applicants ava ed swadhaar from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage of schedule property towards security for the said loan. During Covid-19, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and the Respondents initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 against the schedule property. without issuing demand notice and possession notice, the Respondents initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nizamabad and so the said proceedings are not legal.. Hence the SA.

¶22

The Respondents filed their Reply denying alr the adverse a[egations made in the sA and contended that the Applicants after availing loan of . . -' -. "Rs.25 lakhs from the Respondent Bank by creating mortgage against the schedule propertJr, committed default in repaying the loan dues and

¶23

.1ti

¶24

¶25

to the Applicants through Regd. post and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt. 16.09.2023 and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus the Respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. Thereafter the Respondents proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property by following the due process of law and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶26

Heard [d. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶27

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶28

i. whether th.e Applicants haue establislrcd ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.16.09.2023 and also tle steps initiated bg the Respondents for taking phgsical possession of the scfedule propertg through aduocate commissioner?

¶29

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶30

Point fio.(i):-

¶31

for and ld. stated

¶32

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant No. 1 availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bank whereas Applicants No.2&3 are the

¶33

co-applicants and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards securiqr for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶34

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondents without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, straightaway proceeded for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondents are not legal and valid.

¶35

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in initiating proceedings for taking physical possession ofthe schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶36

To substantial their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued Demand notice dt.22.0s.2o23 and sent the same to the Applicants through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondents. The said notice was also published in Telugu and English daily newspapers and thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. when the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.16.O9.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2OO2 and. sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports Iiled by the Bank. The said notice was also published in Telugu and

¶37

€riglGh.q+ly newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Rbspondents and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs liled by the Bank. Thus the Respondents duly followed the procedure as contemplated

!.1.- ,:

r*r ''i

u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.16.09.2023 for taking possession of the schedule property

¶42

As per the provisions of Section l4 of SARFAESI Act, 2O02, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession ofthe secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld. CJM, Nizamabad, u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.21 4 124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. CJM, Nizamabad, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. So the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶43

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicants.

¶44

In the 245/24 is dismissed as there are no merits. Il

¶45

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dctated to the P,s trdnscribed by t@r, @ftected, signed and pronou\ced. ba tue in the opefl dr-.rt onthis the 14 of January, 2026).

¶48

sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

0 1 JAit 2t?6
DRT'r, Hw)Fn 4 ''' An.

Ananthoju Venkatesh v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthoju Venkatesh v. Rbl 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

Canara Bank versus Chandra Powerloom Industry

Canara Bank versus Palakurthi Nagaraju

M/s. Dudipala Groups versus State Bank of India

Mr.Surya Arun Kumar versus Home First Finance India Pvt. Ltd.