Allowed

Bugga Naveen v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT8 Sept 2026SA/325/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court granted relief because the respondent bank failed to justify its action, file a reply, or produce documents proving compliance with procedural rules.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dated 24.04.2026. The respondent bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the schedule property.

Bugga Naveen versus Alchemist Asset Reconstruction… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER.2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.325/2026

¶5

Mr Bugga Naveen S/o. Bugga Laxmaiah, Aged 32 Yrs., Occ: Private Service, Gender: Male #8465028323

¶6

Mrs Bugga Premalatha W/o. Bugga Naveen, Aged 33 Yrs., Occ: Household,

¶7

Gender: Female

¶8

Mr Bugga Laxmaiah S/o. Bugga , Aged 51 Yrs., Occ: Pvt Service,

¶9

Gender: Male

¶10

All Applicants are R/o. H.No.2-100/1 Kunoor (V & GP), Bhongir (M) Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District Telangana - 508 116 ... Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Having its Registered Office Al A-270, 1st & 2nd Floor Defence Colony, New Delhi 1.10 024

¶13

Rep by its Authorised Officer..

¶14

(sA.No. 32sl2026)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties :

¶16

Counsel for the Applicants : Ramesh Anand M.G Counsel for the Respondents : Exparte Reserued on : 01.09.2026 Pronounced on : 07.09.2026 Upload in website on : 08.09.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) challenging the Possession Notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶19

2 The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the applicants availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bank. Due to financial problems, the Applicants could not pay the loan amount. The respondent Bank failed to issueiserve the Demand notice and Possession Notice to the applicants. The Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not published in two leading daily newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under rule 8(1) and (2). Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank u nder Act, ?002. Hence the SA. r r.1..

¶20

, l.r f" J. called absent and hence the R

¶21

(sA. No. 32sl2026)

¶22

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

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶24

i) Whether the Applicants has established any valid grounds for challenging fhe Possesslon Notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule propefty?

¶25

To what reliefr

¶26

¶27

Point No.fi)

¶28

The Applicants filed the present sA challenging the possession Notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and producing necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured assets The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the mater even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. ln 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 issuing the Pussegsion Notice dated 24.04.2026 against the schedule ptbqerties, l'.hold that the.Applicants have made a case for quashing the jm?asules-^{initiated_bytheiRespondentagainstthe SA scheduleproperty} : e I^{qi:p ;;'!ir} ,-, ii t ,'.' i t '' ;t il/i 3 ' .'''" . . =,--., "^i''l :;"';'^$l'/'/ , ,,i.j "^i; ::, :;:,-1j

¶29

(SA.No.32sl2026)

¶30

under the^provisions of the SARFAESI^Act and^{Rules thereunderand as} such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶31

Point No.(ii)r

¶32

ln the result, S,A32512026 is allowed.

¶33

Accordingly, the present Securitisation^{Application is allowedby setting} aside the Possession Notice dated^{24.04.2026 issued by the Respondent} against the schedule^{property. However,the RespondentBank is at liberty} to proceed afresh against the SA^{schedule property to recover theirdues} by duly following the^{provisionsof SARFAESIAct, 2002 and Rules} thereunder.

¶34

The lnterlocutory Applications,^{pending if any, shall stand disposedof. No} order as to costs.

¶35

10 Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned}

¶36

(Dictated to the Priuqte secretary, transcibed ba^{her, cofrected,signed andpronounced bg me n} the open court on this the OVh^{dag of September, 2026).}

¶37

sd/-

¶38

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

li
/'
/i.k
rRuE CoP:(
).1 . r :i:Zil
OB ffigfz-ot-z

Bugga Naveen v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bugga Naveen v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company 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

Hdfc Bank versus Ritish Rao Regulapati

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Srinivasulu Reddy

Mrs Uma Vani Indukuri versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mohd.Manzoor Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Khaja Ladies Tailors and Cloth Center

Hdfc Bank versus Baljeguden Mohan