Dismissed

Ms Sai Computers Rep by its Partner Mr Sama Pavan Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT6 Feb 2026SA/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice. The court found the bank complied with procedural requirements regarding notice issuance, publication, and newspaper publication, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; interim applications pending if any stood disposed of.

Ms Sai Computers Rep by its Partner Mr Sama Pavan Kumar versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 5TH DAYOF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.283/2024

¶5

M/s Sai Computers

¶6

Rep. by its partner Mr.Sama Pavan Kumar, S/o Jagannatham, aged 46 years, Situated at D.No.13A, Chennai Trade Centre, Secunderabad-s00 003.

¶7

Smt. Sama Radhika, W/o Sama Pavan Kumar,

¶8

Aged 43 years, Occ:partner of M/s Sai Computers, R/o H.No. 1l-L3-1296, Plot No. 15, Road No.2, Vasavi Colony, Near Ashtalaxmi Temple, Kothapet, Saroornagar, KV R.R District-S0O 035.

¶9

Verszs

¶10

Bank of Maharashtra Rep. by its Authorized Officer Zonal Offrce, situated at H.No.4-3-448 to 460 & 465 to 468, 1st floor, Vinoothna Pittle's Majesty, Gopal Bagh, Near Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-Soo OOI

¶11

,i;r"€<br>,ij o s rro zuz6 :l
i'i'rt .?1i
'. ;l

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶13

: Si G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶14

Reserued on :09.01.2O26 Pronounced on :05.O2.2O26 Uploaded on :06.O2.2O26

¶15

:05.O2.2O26

¶16

:06.O2.2O26

¶17

ORDER

¶18

I . This Application is frled u/ s. 17 of the Securit ization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the action of the Respondent Bank in

¶19

issuing Possession Notice dt.27. 06.2024 in^respect of the^schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void.

¶20

¶21

The averments made in the Application in brief are as^follows:

¶22

The Applicants availed CC loan facility of Rs.^{1,00,00,0O0/-} from^the Respondent in the^year 2Ol2 and subsequently^{Covid loan to a tune of} Rs.20 lakhs for development of business and created^{mortgage against the} schedule properties as securit5r for^{repayment of the loans.Due to loss in} the business, the Applicants could not^{pay someinstalments and} requested the Bank to regularize the account. But^{the Bank illegally} declared the loan accounts^{as NPA. Without issuingdemand noticeand} possession notice, the Bank is trying to take^{physicalpossessionof the} schedule properties. The impugned^{possessionwas neither published in} two leading newspapers nor affixed^{on the scheduleproperties and so, the} said notice is not legal and valid.^{Hencethe SA.}

¶23

The Respondent filed their Reply denying^{all the adverse allegations made} in the SA and contended that the applicants^{availed CC Limit of Rs.1 crore} and Covid loan of Rs.20 lakhs^from the^{RespondentBank againstthe} mortgage of schedule^properties and^{thereafter committeddefault in} repaying the loan dues and^{so, the Bankdeclared the loan accountsas} NPA as per the^{guidelines of RBI. The Responded Bank issued demand} notice dt.30.04.2o24 and sent^{the said notice to the Applicants and the} said notice was^{published in daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent} issued possession notice^{dt.27.06.2024 by duly following the procedure} provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules^made no deviations. Accordingly^prayed to dismiss^the 4. Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the^Respondent brought on record.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶25

i. whether tlw Applicants haue established anA ualid grounds for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.27.O6.2024 issued bg the Respondent against the sctedule properties?

¶26

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶27

Polnt IVo.(i):-

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule properties and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the bank declared the loan accounts as NPA

¶30

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the^provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and^possession notice to the Applicants and so, the said^proceedings are not^{legal and} valid.

¶31

B. But the Respondent contended that the Bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants by duly following the^procedure as con isions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made no violations.

¶32

rn order-ito pSG ftWin{gpr,^{the RespondentBankfi1ed material} by them. As per the said material

¶33

Respondent issued demand notice

¶34

dt.O3.04.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.Post and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank. The said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. When there is no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt.27.06.2124 u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicants and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publication liled by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs Iiled by the Respondent. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulously complied with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the secured assets u/s 13(a) of the Act and so, the said possession notice dt.27.06.2o24 is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶35

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶36

In the result, SA 283124 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

1 1 . Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced. bg me in the open February, 2O26)

¶39

0 5 FE8 ?!2[

¶40

sd/_ lG.^{q)Pr CHANDI} [t?=+ry4-^e"rr.ad#' PRESIDING OFFICER l;'^- 1, 4 i. -;,:,.. . -'i-" .

Ms Sai Computers Rep by its Partner Mr Sama Pavan Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sai Computers Rep by its Partner Mr Sama Pavan Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

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. Saritha Industries

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Smt Siddula Durga versus Shriram Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Megana Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Sajwarshka Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Gajakarna Powerlooms Industry