Dismissed

Mrs Urmila Goel v. Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

DRT4 Feb 2026SA/33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant alleged procedural violations. The DRT examined whether the bank followed the mandatory procedure of sending notices, issuing replies to objections, and publishing the notice in newspapers before taking possession. The court found the bank strictly complied with Section 13 and the relevant Rules.

What did the court decide?

The secured creditor is directed to recover the dues as per the secured credit.

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.33/2023

¶5

Mrs.Urmila Goel,

¶6

W/o Mr.Subhash Chand Goel, Aged 75 years, R/o Plot No.124 & 125, Sy.No.74/8, Shanti Niketan Colony, East Marredpally, Sec.bad-500 003.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Authorized Officer

¶10

The Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., 15-2-391 I 392 I 1, Siddiamber Bazar,

¶11

Hyderabad-sO0 012

¶12

Tlne Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Manager,

¶13

l5-2-39I 13921 1, Siddiamber Bazar,

¶14

Hyderabad-s0O 012

¶15

Jai Bhavani Ply'wood I lentrc, Rep.by its partners

¶16

Subhash Chand Goel a,rd Sanjay Goel, 4-3-11/A, RP Road, Secunderbad-3

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant Counselfor the Respondents No.1&2 Respondent No.3

: Sri Abhag Singh

: Sri P.Ramachandran

: Exparte

: 08.O1.2026 : O4.02.2026 : O4.02.2026

¶23

, ..i- 0 4 FEB ,026 J'i ' ,,
;. ."t
,"i. , ,'
. "'. .i .,>- t{. ,r.t", ,S ,:r". 'i" .! "
' "i)i
r gygrffl:1i,,,.i'
.;i.:_ -. s.*-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2l challenging the action of the Respondents No.1&2 in issuing Possession Notice dt.L4.1,2.2o22 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶26

The averments made in the Application in brief are as follows:

¶27

The Applicant is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property. Respondent No.3 is a partnership .firm represented by the husband and son of the Applicant as its partners engaged and the firm is engaged in the business of manufacture of sale of plywood and other allied produces. RespondentNo.3 availed certain credit facilities from the Respondent No.2. However, there is no valid mortgage created over the schedule property. Due to covid-19, Respondent No.3 could not make some payments and the Respondents No.1&2 declared the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice dt.10.7o.2o22. The Respondent Bank gave reply to the objections raised by the Applicant and others in response to the demand notice u/s 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 without considering the representation. Thereafter, Respondents No.1&2 issued possession notice dt. 14. L2.2o22 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was not served on the Applicant. The impugned possession was neither published in two leading newspapers nor af{ixed on the schedule property and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶28

Respondents No.1&2 filed their Reply denying all the adverse ailegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant's husband subhash ,s

¶29

j !# others availed credit facilities to a tune of Rs.4,OO,0O,OO0/_ _^nnnli.$\d ,)t" I bI ooFEBT026 : t.

¶30

ir-, ^-l 'n 4l 'shNu*-o6-_W*s?}fi i

¶31

and the Applicant created mortgage against the schedule property which is acquired by way of will executed by Smt.Parvathi Devi during time time, which came into force after the demise of smt.parvathi Devi and the Applicant also executed Guarantee Deed to secure to said loan facilities. In view of the default committed by the Respondent No.3 and the Applicant, Respondents No.1&2 declared the loan accounts as NpA and issued demand notice dt.10. lo.2o22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was received by the Applicant and the Applicant got issued reply/objections to the said notice and the Respondents No.1&2 issued reply to the said objections. Thereafter, Respondents No.1&2 issued possession notice dt.14.72.2022 and the said notice was published in Telugu, English and Hindi newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus, Respondents No.1&2 have duly followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no deviations. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶32

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 whereas Respondent No.3 was set exparte. Perused the material brought on record.

¶33

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶34

uhether the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for setting aside the Possession Notice dt.14.12.2022 issued bg the Respondents No.1&2 against the schedule properties?

¶35

ii. To what relief ?

¶36

Point No.(i|:-

¶37

D rse of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.
pondents No.1&2 reiterated their respective versions
!'&
*
0 4 FE8 ?tJts
a$

¶38

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent No.3 and the Applicant herein availed loan facilities from the Respondents No.l&2 and the Applicant created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and the Respondents No.1&2 issued demand notice dt.1O.lO.2022 and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice.

¶39

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the possession notice dt.14. 12.2022 and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶40

But the Respondents No.1&2 contended that the Bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and others by duly following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no viorations.

¶41

In order to prove their contention, Respondents No.1&2 filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents No.1&2 issued demand notice dt.10.Lo.2o22 u/s 13(2) of r-he SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the saici notice to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. In fact, the Applicant also admitted the receipt of the said notice and the Applicant raised objections in response to the said demand notice and the Respondents No.1&2 issued reply vide letter dt.07.12.2022 and thereby duly complied with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter, Respondents No.l&2 issued possession notice dt.14.12.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondents said possession notice was published in Telugu, English and ewspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper by the Respondents No.1&2 and the said notice was

¶42

¶43

0 4 FrB 2026
,"fl

¶44

affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondents No.1&2. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondents No.1&2 have scrupulously complied with Rule B(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the secured asset u/s i3(a) of the Act and so, the said possession notice dt.14.72.2022 is perfectiy legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents No.1&2 and against the Applicant.

¶45

Point No.(ii):-

¶46

10' In the result, SA 33/2023 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶47

1 1. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed. bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 4th day of February, 2O26)

¶49

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

B 4 FEB 2026

¶51

c*nqfu Assf. fi'esroilrai :.T?--J, HYDERABAO,

Mrs Urmila Goel v. Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Urmila Goel v. Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Javvaji Suresh versus Bank of Baroda

M S Lmr Constructions versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Miss. Kota Karika

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Private Limited

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics