Dismissed

Yarra Srinivasa Rao v. State Bank of India

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No.245 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging a possession notice issued by the State Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the bank followed the requisite procedure under the Rules.

What did the court decide?

Musunuru Srinivasa Rao's Securitisation Application (SA) No. 245 of 2025 was dismissed.

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29rH DAy OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.245 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Yarra Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkatanarayana, male, Aged 58 years, occ: business, R/o Sy.No.s13/2b/3/3, Akupamula to Kodad Road, Akupamula village, Mungala Mandal, Suryapet district- 508 233.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State Bank of India, G.P. Complex branch, Kodad town, Suryapet district, Telangana - 508 206. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant D. Pooja

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶14

. ORDER

¶15

led Securitisation Application under Section¹⁷ of^the econstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement *^{otttf'Y'iit',,{rtt"'""} ,^{2002 challengingthe PossessionNotice dated} 2^o+.oo.zozs respondent bank against the schedule^property. (fun,,,*oe SrfrI,'s

¶16

(SA. No.245l2025)

¶17

The case in brief is that applicant^{herein availed cash creditloan} facility by mortgaging the schedule^property and^{was regular in paying} the EMI's as^per the agreement. Due to^{loss in businessand also due} to economic recession, the applicant^{could not renew the loanaccount.} It is submitted that the applicant^paid a substantial sum of^Rs.20.00 lakhs before issuance of demand notice dated 17.03.2025. It^is submitted that the respondent bank failed to follow the due^process of law and issued the possession notice regarding schedule^property of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder. The impugned Possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers as stipulated under Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶18

Respondent bank filed reply contending that the applicant having availed cash credit loan of Rs.52.00 lakhs from the respondent bank committed default in repaying the loan amount, so the loan account was classified as NPA on 16.03.2025. Thereafter the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 17.03.2025 to the applicant. The said notice was received by them. e respondent bank issued possession notice dated applicant and the same was received by the by the postal acknowledgments. The said

¶19

2 I Jull^rnzn

¶20

possession published in Mana Telangana English daily and

¶21

.x .. .i /l

¶22

:!^{""i) a:'} ''^''{, on 10.06.2025 and the said notice was affixed

¶23

<sup>.,F,:!9 1y,,lsiyfltjil

¶24

(SA. No.2451202s)

¶25

on the schedule property. Thus the respondent bank followed the Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶27

Now the point for consideration is

¶28

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the Possession notice dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property?

¶29

ii) To What Relief?

¶30

Point no.i)

¶31

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed cash credit loan of Rs.52.00 lakhs from the respondent bank and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan. But the specific contention of the Applicant is that the respondent bank failed to follow the procedure in issuing Possession Notice contemplated under the SARFAESI Act & Rules, 2002.

¶32

But the respondent bank contended that the respondent issued otice dated 03.04.2025 to the applicant and thereaFter Possession notice dated 04.06.2025. The respondent establish that it has scrupulously followed the

¶33

f, i

¶34

,i^* , o ,ttlll ?nrF ( dro"c"eiilure laidrdO n in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in

¶35

It = \r9 ,- :r.ij

¶36

(SA.No.2a5l202s)

¶37

issuing demand notice and^{possessionnotice, enclosed the relevant} documents to the reply statement^{filed by it.}

¶38

B. As per the said documents, it^{is clear that on 03.04.2025,the} respondent bank issued demand notice^{to the Applicant and the said} notice was sent to them through^{registered post and the Applicant} received the said notice as evidenced by the^{Postal acknowledgements} filed by the bank. Subsequently the^{Respondentbankissued} possession notice to the Applicant' The said Possession^noticewas affixed on the schedule^{property as depicted in the photographs filed} by the respondent bank. The said^{Possessionnoticewas published in} "Eenadu" and "Mana Telangana" daily newspapers. Thus^the respondent bank has followed the^{procedurelaid down in Rule 8(1)} and (2) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules in issuing the} possession notice to the Applicants. So the impugned^Possession Notice dated 04.06.2025 issued by the^{respondentbank is perfectly} legal and valid and it is binding on the Applicant.^{So I see no ground} warranting the interference of this Tribunal with the^impugned possession notice dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Respondent bankⁱⁿ respect of schedule propeity. So there are no merits^{in the SA, hence} dismissed. So this^point is answered accordingly.