Dismissed

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi v. State Bank of India

DRT9 Jul 2026SA/259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice was dismissed as infructuous because the bank had withdrawn the impugned notices, eliminating the cause of action.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL^_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE^gTH DAYOF JULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.259/2023

¶5

Mrs. Dongari Dhanalaxmi, W/o late SriGodesi Narendra Babu, Aged 51 years, Occ: Govt. teacher Rlo l-l-Sl7 lB I I12, Sri Sri Nagar, Suryapet, Suryapet District-SO82 13.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State bank of India, Head office in Mumbai Maharashtra and its Main branch-06316 Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶9

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager Main Branch-06316, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶10

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Main Branch-06316,

¶11

Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for ttLe ApplicantApplicant Counsel for RespondentsRespondents

¶14

for ttLe ApplicantApplicant ; Sri for RespondentsRespondents ,z:;'";:;,7;i;:;'ffiiixq.&.m, Reserued on 06.07.2026 :- &$ Pronounced on 09.07.2026 * Uploaded on 10.07.2026 n3,191 m2s ORDER .,jrl"d .$&.,

¶15

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the 2OO2, challenging the impugned Possessicin Notice dt. 17.

¶16

issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property and^to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶17

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

¶18

The Applicant availed Housing loan and Top-up loan from the^2nd Respondent. Due to the sudden demise of her^{husband, the Applicant} could not make some payments. Suddenly,^{Respondent No.3 issued} demand notice dt. 15.05.2023 and after receiving^{the said notice, the} Applicant issued reply through her advocate on 19.06.2023 but^the Respondents failed to give reply to the said notice.^{Withoutcomplying} with Section 13(3A) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2002, Respondent^No.3 issued possession notice dt.l7 .O7 .2023 without complying^Rule S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.^{Hence the SA.}

¶19

The Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse^allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant^{and her husband} availed various loan facilities from the^{Respondent No.2against the} mortgage of schedule^property. After availing^{the loan facilities, the} Applicant committed defauit in repayment of^{loan dues} and^{so, the} Respondents declared the loan account of the^{Applicant as NPA and} issued demand notice dt. 15.05.2023 u/s^{13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,} 2OO2 and the said notice was received by the^{Applicant.Thereafter,the} Applicant sent a reply/ objections dt.19.06.2023 in^{response tothe} said demand notice. Thereafter, Respondents^{issued possession notice} dr.l7 .O7 .2023 by duly following the^{procedure. However, the} ve not complied with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI reply to the objections raised by the Applicantⁱⁿ

¶20

._{espon the d notice dt. 15.05.2023 and so, the Respondents hled a memo wing the demand notice dt. 15.o5.2023 and 7.O7.2023 issued by the Bank and accordingly,

¶21

09"$"{i8.am,". * SA.

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and ld.Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶24

whether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for

¶25

challenging the Possession Notice dLi7.OZ.2O23 issued by the Respondents against the schedule propertA?

¶26

ll. To tuhat relieJ?

¶27

Point lto.(if:

¶28

In view of the above circumstances, the present SA is liable to be dismissed as the Bank has withdrawn the impugned demand notice and possession notice issued by the Bank and so, there is no cause of action survives in the SA. The Respondent Bank is at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶29

Potnt No.(tl):-

¶30

In the result, SA 259 123 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶31

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

¶32

Communicate the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.S, court on this the 9t,

¶34

signed and pronounced bg me in the open

¶35

0^g luL \rfr sd/OFFICER

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vijaya Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkatamahalaxmi Powerloom Industry

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Swarooparani Parakala

State Bank of India versus M/S. Royal Industries

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy