Dismissed

Sravanthi Enterprises v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT9 Jan 2026SA/304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal admitted default under an NPA account and upheld the appellant bank's compliance with Section 13 notices and Rule 8 publication. The Tribunal dismissed the application to set aside asset measures, finding no violation of statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; interim stay is vacated pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Sravanthi Enterprises versus Indian Overseas Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE O9TH^{DAY OF JANUARY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons'),M'A'}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization Application^{No.304 OF 2023}

¶6

Sravanthi Enterprises Rep by its Proprietor^{Mr,Dilip Kumar Patale} S/o Late Shankar^Rao Aged 44 Years, Plot^{No.143, PhaseI} Vijayapuri Colony,^{Vanasthalipuram} Hyderabad 500070

¶7

Mrs.Patale Sona^Bai W/o Late P Shanker^Rao Aged 76 Years,^{Plot No.143,Phase I} Vijayapuri Colony,^{Vanasthalipuram} Hyderabad 500070

¶8

.......ApPlicants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorised^Officer Indian Overseas^Bank Srinagar ColonY^Branch #8-3-952/^{LO, GroundFloor} Satya Enclave,^{Srinagar ColonY} Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸²

¶11

Indian Overseas^Bank Rep bY its Chief^Manager Srinagar ColonY^Branch #8-3-9521 10,^GroundFloor SatYa Enclave,^{Srinagar ColonY} Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸²

¶12

. . ..Respondents'

¶13

Counsel for^{the Applicants: Mr'Abhay Singh} Counset for Respondent^{: Mr'Atluri Krishnam Raiu}

¶14

-:9-B-ID-LB:-

¶15

The^{Applicants filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s} lToftheSecuritizationandReconstructionofFinancialASsetSand Enforcement^{of SecurityInterest Act, 2002(hereinafter referredto as} issued bY the^{resPondentbank} "the Act") to^{set aside}

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

SA No.304/2023

¶18

including action to take physical^possession of the application schedule^{property pursuant} to orders dated 15.06.2023 in Crl.MP No.792/2023.

¶19

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that 1't applicant is represented by its proprietor and 2nd applicant is mother of proprietor. He availed credit facilities from respondent bank for expanslon of business but due to impact of the pandemic, the financial commitment could not be adhered to. Respondent bank declared the account as NPA on 30.04.2021 despite which applicants remitted an amount of Rs.12.26 lakhs. Without serving demand notice and possession notice under Sec.13(2) and without publishing and affixing the same as per Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter), the respondent bank has taken action to take physical possession of the application schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶20

The respondents 1 and 2 bank ("respondent bank,,for short) filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that SA questioning the Crl. Mp proceedings is not maintainable, The applicants availed facility of Rs.28 lakhs but failed to make payment as per agreed terms and accordingly account became NpA on 30.04.2021. The respondent bank had to initiate securitization proceedings and issued demand notice on 14.09.2021 u/s 13(2) and served the same vide postal acknowledgements annexed to reply statement. As there was no payment, possession notice u/s 13(4) was issued on 02.12.2022, served, affixed and published the same in strict compliance of the Rules 8(1) and g(2), Thereafter respondent bank filed Crl,MP No.192/2023 and the advocate commissioner appointed therein issued vacate notice on 07.07.2023. The applicants complied the conditional order passed by the Tribunal on 2t.07.2023 /7'\rr,''.,'"r. (i/^r*x'a'"

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

sA No.304/2023

¶23

in IA No,216512023.^As on^{15.07.2023 applicantsdue an amount of} Rs.29,59,359/-.^{There is no illegality in the action of the respondent} bank and hence^{the SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶24

4.Heardlearnedcounselfortheapplicantsaswellaslearned counselfortherespondentbank.Perusedthematerialdocuments placed on record.

¶25

5.Duringthecourseofarguments,learnedcounselforboth partiesreiteratedtheirrespectiveversionasintheapplicationand reply statement.^{Learned counsel for applicantssought for setting} aside the^{measuresof respondent bank againstthe securedasset} whereas learned^{counsel for respondent bank soughtfor dismissal of} the SA relying^{on documents annexedto the reply statement'}

¶26

The^points for^{consideration are as follows : -}

¶27

i) Whether^{the applicant made out any validground} '^to quash the measures^{inctudingpossessionnoticeissuedby}

¶28

the respondent^{againstthe SA schedule property' as} PraYed^for?

¶29

ii) To what relieft

¶30

Point No.(i):

¶31

The applicants^{admit of availingcredit facility and committing} default in^{repayment.Vide letter dated 11'01'2023the borrower-} applicant not^{only admitted availingloan of Rs'28 lakhs but also} acknowledged^{that account became NPA' possessionnotice was} issued on 02.12.2022^{and he also undertookto close the accountby} 31.03.2023 or^{give financial papersfor the remaining balance in the} account. As^{per copiesof postal acknowledgementcards placedon} record by the^{respondentbank, the applicants received the demand} notice. Copies^{of photographand paper publicationamplyprove that} possession notice^{was affixedon secured asset afiSri]ication was} //,/t {Nx (-/

¶32

Page 4 of4

¶33

SA No.304/2023

¶34

carried out in English and Telugu newspapers on 05.12.2022. Hence there is no truth in the contention that demand notice, possession notice were not served and affixture and publication was not done. I find no violation of Rules 3, B(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002.

¶35

B. The secured creditor is entitled under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to approach the learned CMM/DM for assistance to take physical possession of the secured. Hence such action of the respondent bank within the legal framework cannot be interfered with.

¶36

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures including possession notice dated O2.IZ.ZO22 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Consequently, interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated and the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stancl closed.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶42

(Typed .to my dictotion by the ps, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the Ogth doy of Jonuory, 2026).

¶43

firy"* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sravanthi Enterprises v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sravanthi Enterprises v. Indian Overseas 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

State Bank of India versus Chekarla Narayana Swamy

V Prameela and v Rajasekhar versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Nerella Sathish Goud

Bank of India versus M/S S a Fashions

Bank of India versus Mr. Anish Kumar Kommineni

Bank of India versus M/s. Arktech Enterprises.