Dismissed

kota roja rani v. State Bank of India

DRT2 Feb 2026SA/329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged Sale Notice and possession proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal held auction not conducted and possession not taken, rendering relief infructuous. Sale Notice and demand/possession notices were upheld as valid due to procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Direction issued to respondant to issue fresh sale notice complying with SARFAESI Act.

kota roja rani versus State Bank of India — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.329/2023

¶5

Smt.Kota Roja Rani W/o Sri Kota Ravinder, Aged 49 years, H.No.l-78851C, Nandi Hills, Dayananda Colony, Hunter Road, Hanumakonda-506 001 ... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2,,1 floor,TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-S0o 095 Rep. by its Authorized officer ... Respondent Counsel for the Applicant :SnS. Srilcanth Counselfor Respondent :SnC. Prabhakar Reserued on :19.12.2O25 Pronounced on : 02.02.2026 Uploaded to the utebsite on : O2.02.2026

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the Securitization ald Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenging the Saie Notice dt.24.08.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 20.o9.20 also the pro..idirrgs initiated by the Bank for taking p11 $he^{schedulepropertiespr-rrsuantto the orders of} u/s 14 of the SARF'AESI Act, 2OO2 and to

¶10

voirl.

¶11

ozFrB2026 :

¶12

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶13

Applicant is the alleged guarantor to the loan facilities availed by M/s Kubera Agro Agencies Cotton & General Merchants and the Respondent Bank obtained signatures of the Applicant along with other guarantors on blank documents. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the borrower company could not make some payments. The Applicant representing the borrower requested the bank to settle the account under OTS and the same is pending with the Bank. All of a sudden, without serving any prior notices, the Respondent bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.24.O8.2023 for conducting auction of the schedule properties and the said sale notice was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule properties. The Respondent bank without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, proceed.ed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physica-l possession of the schedule properties and obtained orders from the Ld. District collector, Warangal in RC No.Fl/53412022 and the Revenue Inspector issued notice dt.O2.O9.2023 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are illegaI and arbitrary. The Respondent Bank failed to follow Rule 8(6)(&)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 as no separate 30 days sale notice was issued for giving an opportunity to redeenr the secured asset. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule properties. The Respondent bank has not obtained valuation report before fixing the reserve price against the schedule properties. Hence the SA.

¶14

The Respondent bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations
made in the SA and contended that M/s Kubera Agro Agencies Cotton and
General Merchants represened by its.Proprietor Gopu RaJaiah availed
various the Respondent and later committed default
1nm the Bank classified the loan accounts as
NPA 1.O3.2 guidelines of RBI. As the borrower Sri
\r ,- Y-'r *ajaiah 02FEB2026 died, the Bank igr ,r,( * demarrd notice dt.2o.05.2019 to the
\ rr- ,

¶15

legal heirs of the said Gopu Rajaiah and the said notice was duly served on the wife, daughters and son of the borrower along with the Applicant who is guarantor. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice dt.03.08.2019 to all the legal heirs of the borrower as well as guarantors and wife of the deceased borrower personally acknowledged the said possession notice. The said possession notice was published in Indian Express and Eenadu daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties. Thereafter the bank obtained valuation reports dt.2o.tO.2A22 from the approved valuer of the Bank. The Bank issued sale notice dt.19.11.2o22 for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 31.12.2022 and the said sale notice was affixed on the schedule properties and also published in two leading newspapers. challenglng the said sale notice, the Applicant filed sA 336/22 and the Applicant after taking several adjournments, not pressed the said sA and the same was dismissed on 07.o8.2024 as not pressed. suppressing the fact of filing of sA 336122 and also withdrawal of said SA, the Applicant filed the present SA. The Respondent Bank also issued another Sale notice dt.06.03 "2023 and thereafter issued the present Sale Notice dt.24.O8.2O23 and the said sale notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed. on the schedule properties. Thus the Bank has duly following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent.. Perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. uthether the Applicant has established anA ualid ground for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.24.08.2023 bsued bg the against the schedule properties?

¶19

Lt. Whether the Applicant has established anA ualid ground for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Bankfor taking phgsical possesslon of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2O02?

¶20

TLL. To uthat relief ?

¶21

Points No.(i)&&(ii):-

¶22

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

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that M/s Kubera Agro Industries Cotton and General Merchants availed availed credit facilities from the Respondent and the Applicant herein is the guarantor to the said ioan facilities and thereafter, the borrower committed default in repaying the loan dues. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that challenging the demand notice, possession notice ancl earlier sale notice dt.19. LL.2022, the Applicant filed SA 336122 and the sa.me was not pressed by the Applicant and so this Tribunal dismissed the said SA as not pressed vide order dt.O7.OB.2024.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Bank without serving demand, notice, possession notice and prior to sale notice, issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.24.O8.2O23 for conducting auction of the schedule properties and also initiated proceedings for taking physical -session^{of the schedule properties u/s14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2OO2} t to the orders of Ld.District Collector, Warangal without following s the re contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 lx and Ru e thereunder and so, the said proceedings are not legal ,rI 0 ? FtB"fl$Fr"lidtlf^{liabie to be set aside.}

¶25

But the Respondent contended that after availing loan facilities, the borrower Sri Gopu Rjaiah expired and the Bank issued all the statutory notices to the legal heirs of the borrower and as well as the Applicant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Challenging the demand notice, possession notice and earlier sale notice, the Applicant filed 5A336/22 and the Applicant not pressed the said SA. Having withdrawn the said SA, the Applicant is estopped to raise any plea with regard to the demand notice and possession notice.

¶26

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after declaring the loan accounts of the borrower as NPA, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.2o.O5.2O79 and sent the same to the legal heirs of the deceased borrower Gopu Rajaiah and as well as the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank and the said notice was served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filecl by the bank. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice dt.03.08.2o19 to the legal heirs of the borrower and the Applicant herein and the wife of the deceased borrower acknowledged the said notice and the said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also alfixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued Sale Notice dt.19.11.2022 and challenging the said sale notice, the Applicant filed SA 336122 however, the said SA was not pressed by the Applicant. bank initiafid proceedings for taking physical possession perties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and also d\ ,7'r* SaIe Notice dt.24.O8.2023 for conducting auction of - ii^- R', i:;l^{o 2 FFB nn *}

¶27

Wr-'nsW

¶28

the schedule properties and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties. However, during the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.24.o8.2023, no auction was conducted by the Bank and the bank also not taken the physical possession of the schedule properties in view of the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶29

As the auction in respect of the schedule properties in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.24.08.2023 was not conducted and physical possession of the schedule properties was not taken, relief claimed by the Applicant in the SA becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the present SA for adjudication and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned sale notice. As far as demand notice dt.2o.O5.2019 and possession notice dt.O3.08.2019 are concerned, the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, made thereunder in issuing the said notices and so, the said notices are legal and valid. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuctls and the SA is liable to be dismissed. Suf{ice, if a direction is giveri lo the Respondent bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auc',-;.on of the schedule propertics by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶30

Point No.(iii):-

¶31

result, SA 3ig l2g is dismissed as there are no merits.
the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand
di o r as to costs.
ffiP=.;
4*"b
i,-,,, !. . & i.r 0? rtB202s ,ht
it' ' :1', ..li
:-r";c': 1''
.._- ''\ .. "1. rl
=*42

¶32

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2"d day of February, 2026).

¶34

sd/{c.^coPrCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

0 2 FE8 2026

¶36

druw

¶37

kota roja rani v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

kota roja rani v. State Bank of India

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 Ms.Parsi Rohini

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited