Dismissed

Sri Tadakamadla Avinash v. Axis Bank

DRT2 Sept 2026SA/295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a guarantor, challenged the bank's physical possession of a mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, alleging procedural non-compliance. The Debt Recovery Tribunal found that the bank followed mandatory notice provisions and concluded that the applicant failed to comply with the interim stay order, leading to the dismissal of the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The challenge to the possession proceedings is dismissed; prior interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Sri Tadakamadla Avinash versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.295./2C25

¶5

Sri Tadakamadla Avinash, S/o late Sri Tadakamadla Veera prasad, Aged 35 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.7-3-61l 1, Old Gunj, Siddipet-SO2013.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

AXIS Bank. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Corporate Office at Modi Square Building, 3d floor, RP Road, Sec.bad-SOO 003.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Si A.Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent : M/ s Lotus Law Associates

¶11

Reserued on : 21.07.2026 Pronounced on : 02.09.2026 Uploaded on :02.O9.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Act, for the in

¶14

¶15

?[6 brief, are that:

¶16

Applicant is the facility of Rs.80 lakhs availed from the Respondent in 20t8 and the Applicant has been

¶17

paying the instalments regularly but due to linancial problems, he could not pay some instalments. The Applicant requested the Bank to regularize the loan account but all of a sudden, the Bank issued demand notice dt. I 1.06.2024 and the said notice was served on the Applicant. Thereafter, without serving possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway proceeded for taking physical possession of the secured asset u/s 14 of the Act and the advocate commissioner affixed vacate notice dt.2A.OI.2O25 on the schedule property. The impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

The Respondent liled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Sree Parameshwara & Company availed loan from the Respondent and the Applicant herein is a guarantor and in view of the default committed by the borrower, the loan account was classified as NPA on 24.05.2O24 as per the guidelines of RBI. Accordingly, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice and possession notice by duly following the procedure and thereafter proceeded u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. Earlier the borrower and the Applicant herein along with T.Annapurna filed SA lO2 125 on the file of DRT-II, Hyderabad and obtained stay order, however, not complied with the same. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

Counsel and Ld.Counsel for the record.

¶21

consideration are 12 SFP W :i: i

¶22

uthe' ther the Appli cciit has establisted ang ualid grounds for chaltenging the pro, initiated bg the Respondent for taking

¶23

phgsical possession of the schedule propertg u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2?

¶24

ii. To what relief?

¶25

Polnt JVo.(if :-

¶26

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

¶27

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant herein is the guarantor to the loan availed from the Respondent. After availing the loan, the borrower committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent. Subsequently, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and proceeded for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving possession notice, straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property without following the procedure and so, the said proceedings are null and void.

¶29

Per.contra, Resp.gndent contended that the borrower availed loan from the , Respofldent^{herein-i.iagainstthe mortgage of the scheduleproperty and the}

¶30

' ApplicanJ.is guarlgtor to the said loan facility and thereafter, the borrower cotrnltQ* dq&rrlt in.repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the loan was classilied as NPA as per the

¶31

issued all the mandatory notices to

¶32

by duly following the procedure

¶33

contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Acl,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶34

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.ll.O6.2o24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.31.O8.2O24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the^postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The said^possession notice was^{published in two daily} newspapers as evidenced by the copies of^{paperpublication} filed by^the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule^{propertSr as} evidenced by the copies of^photographs filed by^{the Respondent.Thus the} Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)(2) of^{Rules, 2OO2in} issuing possession notice dt.31.08.2024 u/s^{13(4) of the} Act.^Thereafter, the Respondent^proceeded u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct, 2002 for taking} physical possession of the schedule^propert5r and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.V ACJM,^{Medchal-Malkajgiri District} at Kukatpally issued notice to the Applicant to^vacate the^schedule property. Challenging the said proceedings, the Applicant^{Iiled the present} SA and this Tribunal^granted interim^{conditionalstay order but the} Applicant failed to comply with the^{said order. Accordingly, this point is} answered in favour ofthe Respondent and^{against the Applicant.}

¶35

as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently.;'.t1.'ib Interlocutory^{ApBfications, pendingif any, shall stand} disposed or. Up bfr-br esrt*t9.{t".' -' -+.",..;,i].;t, .

¶36

t2. Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced^{bg me} in^{the open} court on this the 2"d daA of September,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶38

sd/(G. GOPI CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

[2siP2m

¶40

DRI.I, HYDERaBT

¶41

Sri Tadakamadla Avinash v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tadakamadla Avinash v. Axis Bank

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ind Cotton Garments LLP

Govardhan Sirangi versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Puspak Energy Industry versus Union Bank of India

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Thalluri Sandhya

Canara Bank versus M/S Rahul Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Mallikarjun Textiles