The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued by a bank. The bank demonstrated compliance with SARFAESI procedures by sending a demand notice, affixing the possession notice on the schedule property, and publishing it in newspapers as required.
The application filed by the applicant was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT: SRIGUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER SA.No.333 of 2024
Between:
Sri KoyalkarJagadesh, S/o K. Laxmanji,aged about53 Years, Occ: business, R/oH.No.2-7-86, Telugu basthi, MachaBollarum, Secunderabad, Hyderabad -500 010.
... Applicant
VERSUS
Maharana Pratap Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Represented by its authorised officer Situated at 2-3-36/ tl22&. 23, Maharanapratap road, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties:
Counsel for Applicant Sri D. Raghavulu Respondent Sri M. Srinivas Reddy Orders reserved on 07.07.2026 Pronounced on Uploaded in website on 13.08.204q; +JORDER - .:..:.. . ..., i.; 1. The ap pl i ca nt fiI ed Secu ritisationAppl icatiri'ri'u-hdes'
Securitisation and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets and Enforcement
(sA'No.333/2024)
of SecurityInterestAct, 2002 challengingthe Possession Noticedated 05.08.2024issued by respondentbank against the schedule property'
(sA.No.333/2024)
applicantbut did not come forward to repay the loan' Thereafter the respondent bankissued possessionnotice dated 05'08'2024 to the applicant andthe same was received by the applicant as evidenced by thepostal acknowledgments'The said possessionnotice was published in ManaTelanganaTelugu daily and Hans IndiaEnglish daily on 06.08.2024and the said notice was affixedon the schedule property. Thus the respondentbankfollowedthe Rule 8(1) and (2) of Security Interest(Enforcement)Rules,2002' Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.
5. Now thepoint for consideration is
i) Whether the applicanthas established any validgroundsfor setting aside thePossessionnotice dated 05.08'2024issuedby the Respondent bankagainst the schedule property?
ii) To What Relief?
Point no.i)
ng Possession Notice.
3
(SA.No.333/2024)
4
(SA.No.333/202a)
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.
Point no.ii)
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th August, 2026)
sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
$<br>lp
j i3ftffi,n't t
1 ."1
A,:W '. r, HycERAE.4D.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds for setting aside the possession notice dated 05.08.2024 issued by the respondent bank against the schedule property?
What relief is to be granted in the application filed by the applicant under the SARFAESI Act?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Koyalkar Jagadesh
Maharana Pratap Co-operative Urban Bank Limited
Gummadu Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
