Dismissed

Mr Lanco Wale Yadav Vikesh v. Hdfc Bank

DRT14 Jul 2026SA/314/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank. The Tribunal found the bank followed statutory notice and publication requirements and dismissed the application as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No. 314/2025 was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Mr Lanco Wale Yadav Vikesh versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 14rH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER SA.No.314 of 2O25

¶3

Between:

¶4

MT. LANCO WALE YADAV VIKESH, S/o Lanco Wale Yadav Heerala, Aged major, occ: business, male, H.No.2-5-151, Khajigali, Bhainsa, Nirmal district - 504 103. Telangana.

... Applicant

VERSUS

HDFC Bank Limited,

Rep by its Authorised officer, R/o 5-9-22/L, Shapoorji towers, 4th floor, Hill Fort road, Opp to BSNL office, Ambedkar Colony, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶9

Also at :

¶10

HDFC Bank Ltd, Rural Banking Group, 2nd floot, Zenith house, Opp Race Course, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 034.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant

¶14

Sri A. Pavan Kumar

¶15

Respondent

¶16

Sri M. Srinivas Reddy

¶17

Orders reserved on 08.07.2026 Pronounced on t4.07.2026 Uploaded in website on L4.07.2026 * 1[p' ...,,f$9 ;$i

¶18

(SA. No.314/202s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The applicant filed Securitisation^{Application under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enforcement} of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging^{the PossessionNotice dated} 09.07 .2025 issued by respondent bank^{againstthe schedule property.}

¶21

The case of the applicant in brief is that applicant^{herein availedloan} for a sum of Rs.55.00 lakhs in the^year 2020 against^{the mortgageof} schedule mentioned^{property. The applicant was regular in paying the} instalments and due to financial^{problems could not pay some} instalments. While things stood^{thus, the respondent bank declared} the loan account as Non-performing asset^{which is not in accordance} with RBI guidelines. It is submitted^{that the respondent bank failed} to follow the due^process of^{law and issuedthe possession notice} against the schedule^{property of applicationwhichis illegaland} arbitrary and in violation^{of SARFAESIAct and rules made thereunder.} The impugned Possession^{notice was neither affixed on the schedule} property nor published in two leading newspapers^{as stipulatedunder} Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.}

¶22

Hence the SA.

¶23

Respon ntending that the applicant^having # uru;1s6.i'1dbn .00 lakhs on mortgage of^schedule * p ro perty { rro,1', 1 f, Uqtlffi o "^n[ nk committed default in^repaYing .'^l. -., r,i

¶24

(SA. No.314/202s)

¶25

the loan amount, so the loan account was classified as NpA as per the banking guidelines laid by RBI. Thereafter the respondent bank issued demand notice under section L3(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 29.07.2024 to the applicant. The said notice was returned unserved. Hence the statutory demand notice was published on 20.08.2024 in "Financial Express" and "Nava Telangana". Thereafter the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 09.07.2025 to the applicant and the same was received by the applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments. The said possession notice was published in Nava Telangana Telugu daily and Financial Express English daily on L4.07.2025 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property. Thus the respondent bank followed the Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶27

Now the point for consideration is

¶28

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the Possession notice dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property?

¶29

ii) ro what Retiff '**W
f-"q:
Point no.i) Ii
ii rr 1lJUt?Rf t+
i (. ,4, . '"': --. -6 tr..:!h.'t'-1"
iih,,-,-** ,,,,i

¶30

(SA.No.31al202s)

¶31

The undisputed^{facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan of} Rs.55.00 lakhs on^{mortgage of schedule propertyfrom the} respondentbankandthereaftercommitteddefaultinrepayingthe loan. But the specific^{contention of the Applicant is that the respondent} bank failed to^{follow the procedurecontemplatedunderthe SARFAESI} Act & Rules, 2002^{in issuingPossessionNotice'}

¶32

But the respondent bank^{contendedthat the respondent issued} demand notice dated^{29.07.2024 to the applicant and thereafter} issued impugned Possession^{notice dated09.07.2025.The respondent} bank in order to establish^{that it has scrupulouslyfollowed the} procedure laid down in sARFAESI^{Act and Rules made thereunder in} issuing demand notice and^{possessionnotice,enclosedthe relevant} documents to the^{reply statementfiled by it.}

¶33

B. As per the said documents,^{it is clear that on 29.07'2024, the} respondent bank issued^{demand noticeto the Applicant and the said} notice was sent to him through^{registeredpost and the Appllcant} received the said notice^{as evidencedby the Postal acknowledgements} filed by the bank.^{The demandnotice was also publishedin Telugu} Newspaper "Nava Telangana"^{and Englishnewspaper"Financial} on 20.08.2024.^{SubsequentlYthe} notice to the APPlicant.^{The said}

¶34

n the schedule^{propertyas depicted in}

¶35

(SA. No.314/202s)

¶36

the photographs filed by the respondent bank. The said Possession notice was published in "Nava Telangana" and "Financial Express" daily newspapers. Thus the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice to the Applicant. So the impugned Possession Notice dated 09.07.2025 issued by the respondent bank is perfectly legal and valid and it is binding on the Applicant. So I see no ground warranting the interference of this Tribunal with the impugned possession notice dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Respondent bank in respect of schedule property. So there are no merits in the SA, hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶37

Point no.ii)

¶38

In the result, SA.3l4/2025 is dismissed.

¶39

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

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th

¶42

tu. oorrarotfJi
PRESIDING OFFICER
U ^ l ol;-g RUETCOPY
Agr. nr6dJL '
NqT.I. HYDEP{/BAO

Mr Lanco Wale Yadav Vikesh v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Lanco Wale Yadav Vikesh v. Hdfc 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Annapoorna Traders versus Icici Bank Limited

Veerabadhra Traders versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Syed Ameenuddin versus Canara Bank

Ms Sri Raja Rajeshwari Edible Water Plant Rep by Its Prop M Swapna versus Indian Overseas Bank

Goka Sushanth Reddy versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shakthi Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.