Dr. DIPSI, secured creditor applicant challenged respondent's actions under SARFAESI Act including taking physical possession of secured assets. Court found demand and possession notices served correctly and documents undisputed, holding application flawed and dismissing it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 2oth DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com,L.LB. (Hons.),M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No. 295OF 2025
J. Venkata Ramana MoorthY S/o. Sri. lay Kumar New No.4B, Old NO. 150 Swamy Naicken Street, Chintardipet, Chennai-600002, Tamil Nadu
.......Applicant.
Versus
The Authorised Officer OMKARA Assets ReconstructionPrivate Limited Precision Plaza, 3'dFloor, Old NO.2B1, New No.397, Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai -600018.
.....Respondent
: Mr. T. Nagender Counsel for the Appticant Counsel for RespondentCompany: Mr. G. Bhanu Mutihy
-:@-LB:-
Page 2 of4
sA No.295/2025
4' Learned counser appearing for the appricant reported order may be passed based on record. Heard the rearned counser appearing for the respondent company' perused the written arguments fired by the respondent company and also perused
Page 3 of4
SA No.29sl2025
Point No.(i):
l,/
Page 4 of 4
SA No. zssliozs
under section t4 of the Act, 2402 and such action cannot be treated as irregular or illegal.
B. In the view of above observation, it is concluded that the applicants has failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the measures of the respondent bank under the Act, Z00z against the SA schedule properties and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.(ii):
(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20'h day of March, 2026). -^
ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for interdicting the respondent company's taking of physical possession of the Schedule A property.
Whether the applicant could obtain any relief against the measures initiated by the respondent.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
J. Venkata Ramana Moorthy
OMKARA Assets Reconstruction Private Limited
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
