Allowed

Ms Vijayalaxmi Enterprises v. Idfc First Bank Limited

DRT10 Aug 2026SA/286/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants, a partnership firm and its partners, filed an application under Section 7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to set aside a possession notice issued by IDFC First Bank due to alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions regarding service of notice. With the respondent appearing ex-parte and failing to justify the notice, the Tribunal allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Settings aside the possession notice dated 17.03.2026; Applicant is permitted to challenge measures initiated by Respondent against scheduled properties under the SARFAESI Act.

Ms Vijayalaxmi Enterprises versus Idfc First Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2c,26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.286./2c.26

¶4

M/s Vijaylaxmi Enterprises Rep by Rudra Saritha Plot no.10, Ramanathpur Laxmi Nagar, Near India Bank, Hyderabad 500013

¶5

Munukuntla Kiran Kumar S/o Narsimha Goud, Aged about 41, Gender: Male, Occ: Business, R/o Flat no.2O3,2nd Floor, H.No. 1-3-64/201, Sai Krupa Residency, Jaynagar Street no.6, Habsiguda, Hyderabad -500007

¶6

Rudra Saritha W/o Late Rudra Vikas Aged about 36, Gender: Female Occ: house wife, R/o Flat no.002, Ground Floor, Block-H, Himavathi Apartments, Street no.8, Habsiguda Village, Uppal kalan manadal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad - 500007

¶7

4. Rudra Ramadevi W/o Late Rudra^prabhakar

¶8

Aged about 62, Gender; Female Occ: House R/o Flat no.002, Ground Floor, Block-H, i.ty. Himavathi Apartments, Street no Habsiguda Village, ,:r +

¶9

(SA.No. 286/202G)

¶10

Uppal kalan manadal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad-500007

¶11

... Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

The Authorized Officer IDFC First Bank Registered Office at KRM.Tower, 7th Floor, no.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai - 600031 Bralch Office at Ground Floor, 7-10-63/ t/ t Veera Chambers, Chikoti gardens, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the parties :

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : P.S.I[. Rauindra

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents : Exparte Reserued on : 28.07.2026 Pronounced on : 07.08.2026 Upload in u_tebsite on :10.08.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1' The Appricants fired the present securitisation Apprication u/s..r7 0f the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act, 2002 (SARFAES| Act, 2002) chailenging the

¶20

Possession Notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the Respondent Bank

¶21

under the SARFAEST Act, 2OOZ.

¶22

(sA.No. 286/2026)

¶23

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the 1st applicant which is a partnership Firm represented by its partners Applicants No. 2 to 4 avaired roan facirities from the Respondent Bank. Due to financial problems, the Applicants could not pay the loan amount. The Respondent bank faired to serve the Demand notice and possession Notice to the appricants The possession notice was not affixed on the schedure properties and not published in two leading daily newspapers. Hence prayed to set aside a, the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank underthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶24

¶25

Notice served to Respondent, no representation, cared absent and hence the Respondent is set exparte on 2g.07.2026.

¶26

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and perused the material brought on record.

¶27

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶28

i) Whether the Appticants have estabtished any valid grounds for cha'enging fhe possessrbn Notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule properties?

¶29

i0 To what retief?

¶30

point No.fi)

¶31

The Applicants flled the present SA challenging the possession Notice dated^'17.03. the Respondent against the schedule Bank who invoked the SARFAESI

¶32

¶33

(SA.No. 286/2026)

¶34

proceedings against the schedure properties, faired to justify their action by filing Repry and producing necessary materiar documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAEST Act and Rures framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured assets. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving severar opportunities and faired to fire their Repry and materiar documents to disprove the aregations of the Appricants. rn the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of sARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in lssuing the possession Notice dated 17.03.2026 against the schedure properties, r hord that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule properties under the provisions of the sARFAEST Act and Rures thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶35

Point No.(iili

¶36

ln the result, SA2B6t2O26 is ailowed.

¶37

Accordingly, the present securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the^possession Notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedure properties. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the sA schedure properties to recover their dues by dury folrowing the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶38

¶39

(sA.No. 286/202G)

¶40

9' The lnterlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the priuate Secretary, transcribed. bA her, conected. si o n crt nn,t the open court on this tie oil* ooy of Auwst, 2026). d, g ed and pronounced bg me in

¶43

sd/-

¶44

lc.^coPrcHANDr PRESIDING OFFICEi

¶45

J ol
,,..t"fo,

¶46

ff:w,

Ms Vijayalaxmi Enterprises v. Idfc First Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vijayalaxmi Enterprises v. Idfc First 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri Nutangi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Vani Educational Society

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Two Birds Travels

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mayuri Hospital

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shiva Sai Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vijayalaxmi Textiles