Dismissed

Mr. Bodapudi Ashok Kumar v. Idfc Bank First Bank Ltd.

DRT16 Jul 2026SA/255/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers to set aside SARFAESI measures. The Tribunal found the bank duly classified the account as NPA and complied with statutory notice requirements under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), rejecting claims of illegal possession initiation.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; the stay granted via interim application is vacated.

Mr. Bodapudi Ashok Kumar versus Idfc Bank First Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization Application No.255 OF 2025

¶6

Mr. Bodapudi Ashok Kumar,

¶7

S/o. B. Basavaiah, aged about 42^years,

¶8

Occupation: Private Service, R/o. H. No. 29-88, Plot Nos. 20/8,27,21lA, in survey No. 151 & 153/1, New Vidya Nagar Colony, Naredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

¶9

Mrs. Anitha Kan uga nti,

¶10

Wo.^{Mr. Bodapudi AshokKumar, aged about 42 years,} Occupation: Private Service, R/o. H. No. 29-88, Plot Nos. 2018, 21,271A, in survey^{No. 151 & 153/1,} New Vidya Nagar Colony, Naredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

¶11

Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

IDFC First Bank Limited, Represented by its Leqal Manager, Having its Branch office at^{Municipal No. 6-3-354,} 2nd Floor, S B Tower, Road No. 1 Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana State^- 500 034

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Legal Department, Upper Ground^Floor, Karol Bagh, Ops Office,62120,^{New RohtakRoad,} Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005, Represented by its Legal lvlanager

¶16

.....Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Applicants :^{Mr. Avinash Nayakwadi} Counsel for Respondent :^{M/s. V. Santosh} ffi,*

Page 2 of 6

SA No. 255/202s

-:ORDER:-

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants uls.77 of the Securltisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (,,Act,, hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under section 2(o), 13(2) and 13(4) Act, including the action of taking physical possession of the SA Schedule property via advocate commissioner vacate notice dated 02.06.2025 in pursuance to Crl.M.P.No.53/2025 issued by the Hon,ble additional Senior Civil Judge cum I Additional Chief ludicial Magistrate, Medcha l- t4a lkajgiri at Kushaiguda.

¶22

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the applicants are the absolute owners of the S.A. schedule property purchased under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2019 and had availed a home loan of Rs. 70,00,000/- from the Respondent Bank by creating an equitable mortgage over the said property for its development. They contend that they were regular in repayment of the loan until the sudden demise of the bu der, who had allegedly retained the sale proceeds received from third_party purchasers, resulting in financial hardship and consequent default. The Applicants further assert that, despite making intermittent payments, the Respondent Bank wrongly classified the loan account as a NpA on 02.09.2023 without adhering to the applicable norms. It is further alleged that the Respondent Bank failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rutes 8(1), 8(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter^..Rules,, for short) inasmuch as the demand notice dated 07.0g.2024 and the possession notice dated 19.72.2024 were never served upon them, the possession notice was neither affixed on the secured asset nor

ffi"'x

Page 3 of 6

SA No. 25sl202s

published in the manner prescribed under the Rules, and the Respondent Bank suppressed these material facts while obtaining the order under Section 14 of the Act. Hence, applicants pray for setting aside the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA Schedule Property.

¶27

The Respondent Bank filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that applicants defaulted in repayment of the loan, resulting ln the loan account being classified as a NPA on 02.09.2023. The Respondent further asserts that a demand notice dated 07.O8.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was duly served upon the Applicants and, upon their failure to discharge the outstanding dues or submit objections under Section 13(3A), a possession notice dated 79.12.2024 under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued, duly served, affixed on the secured asset, and published in two newspaperc on 24.12.2024 in compliance with the^provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002. The Respondent specifically denies the allegations of non-service of statutory notices and procedural irregularities, contending that all mandatory requlrements under the Act and the Rules were duly complied with and that the Applicants themselves have annexed the demand notice to the Securitisation Application. It is further contended that the Applicants are chronic defaulters who have approached this Tribunal without clean hands and are not entitled to any equltable relief. On these averments, and^placing reliance upon the declsions in Brahm (Alloys) Ltd. v. West Bengal Financial Corporation and Tom Thomas v. State Bank of India [2017 (2) DRTC 6681, the Respondent prays for dismissal of the SA with costs.

¶28

Both learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent reported no oral arguments. Perused the-rt/ritten ///W'\1.t\ (-,, '

¶29

page 4 of 6

¶30

sA No. 25sl2025

¶31

arguments filed by the applicants, respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶32

5' Learned counser for the Appricants reiterated the averments made in the securitisation Apprication and contended that the Respondent Bank had faired to compry with the mandatory provisions of sections 13(2), 13(3A), L3(4) and 14 0f the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rures, 2002. It was submitted that the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank are vitiated by non-compriance with the mandatory statutory procedure. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the s.A. schedule property be declared illegal and be set aside.

¶33

6' Learned counser for the Respondent Bank denied the averments made by the Applicants, reiterated the contents of the reply statement, and placed reliance on the documents annexed thereto, It was contended that the roan account was righfly crassified as a NpA in accordance with the RBI guiderines and that a, measures under Sections 13(2), 13(34), L3(4) and 14 0f the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 were initiated after strict compriance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, 2002. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the decisions in Brahm (Alloys) Ltd. v. West Bengat Financial Corporation and Tom Thomas v. State Bank of India, 2017 (4 DR(C 668, in support of the contention that a defaurting borrower cannot obstruct recovery proceedings lawfully initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶34

The points for consideration are as follows : _

¶35

Whether the applicants made out any valid ground to

¶36

quash any of the measures initiated^'by the ispondent against the SA schedule pt-operty as prayed r"rr/ry*

Page 5 of6

SA No.2ssl2025

ii) To what relieP

Point No,(i):

Admittedly, applicants afailed housing loan facility against mortgage of schedule property and failed to make payment as per repayment schedule. Hence the action of the Respondent Bank in classification of account as NPA and initiating the SARFESI proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by the applicants.

¶42

The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure of law.^pages 14 to 35 of the material paper filed separately are the^photostat copies of postal receipts and track reports proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 36 to 44 are the Photostat copies of postal receipt of Possession Notice dated 19.12.2024, photographs as proof of alflxture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 24.72.2024. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rutes, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶43

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the Applicants have failed to establish any valid ground to interdict the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the provisions of the Act against the SA schedule property. Accordingly, the SA is liable to be dismissed. ll{a*/2lM'

Page 6 of 6

SA No. 2ssl2025

Point No.(ii):

11' In the result, the securitisation Apprication fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶48

Consequently, stay granted vide order dated 23.06.2025 in IA.No.1635 of 2025 in the SA stands vacated and Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

t4' Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶51

(.rl!:!,1, !, ,:.*.rr:^by-.the Steno., corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th doy of July, 2026).

¶52

(r'ror KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr. Bodapudi Ashok Kumar v. Idfc Bank First Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Bodapudi Ashok Kumar v. Idfc Bank First Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Karnatakam Tejender Goud

Sri Putcha Balaji Dev versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Kuchikulla Shravya

Valluri Venkata Gopal Rao and Another versus Union Bank of India

M/s. Bank of Baroda. versus M/s. Sharada Industries.

Sri Vuppu Prudhvi Raj versus Uco Bank