Dismissed

Navneeta Agarwal v. State Bank of India

DRT5 Feb 2026SA/335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a security application filed by third parties challenging a bank's possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the applicants failed to prove the property was joint family property and lacked locus standi as they were not borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.335/2024

¶5

Smt.Navneeta Agarwal D/o Shankarlal Agarwal Aged 44 years, Occ:house wife, R/o M.No.8-2 -293 I 82 I PN I t52, Plot No.152, Sy.No.403(TS No.1, Ward No.9,Block No.P), Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶6

Presently temporarily residing at: OMQ 395/2, Glmohar Enclave, Air Force Station Sulur , Kangrampalyam, Coimbatore-64 l4O I Tamilnadu.

¶7

Smt.Komal Agarwal, D/o Shankarlal Agarwal, Aged 40 years, Occ:house wife, Rlo 3-4-397, Flat No.412, Lingampally Road, S V Basant Apartment, NaraYanaguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-SOO 027.

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, Stressed Assets Management^branch-Il, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

Tte Authorized Oflicer, State Bank of India, SME Branch, 3rd floor, Above Westside, Hyderabad.

¶12

Ms/s navneeta Steels^P.Ltd., Rep. by SriShankarlal Agarwal, R/o Plot No.l52, 8-2-293182|PNl^152, Prashasan Ngar, Road No.72, Jubilee^hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Applicants M/s Sharad Sanghi & Associafes Counsel for Respondents No .¹ &2 Smt. Tarangini Pisip ati Si V. Rauinder Counsel for Respondent No.3

¶15

Reserued on 09.01.2025 Pronounced on o5.02.2026 Uploaded on os.02.2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondents No. 1&2 for taking physical possession of the schedule^property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XMI Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.l3l5l24 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶18

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶19

The Applicants are 3'd parties to the^proceedings initiated by the Respondents No.1&2 for taking^{physicalpossession} of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. The grand father of the Applicants by name Late Sri Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal was doing cloth business at Secunderabad with the capital^{investment having inherited} through his father. After the demise of the^{grand father of the} Applicants and his two sons and four daughters^{have orally partitioned} the properties and from the share of the Applicant father, he^has established the business and^purchased the^{properties from the} ancestral source only and mortgaged^{the said property to the bank for} securing the loan. The- father of the^{Applicants has purchased t}te} scheduld oiobeHy.;un&i.'da Asreement of^{Saledt. 12.06.2008 vide} docum#t No.2u89/2004t-fud ti,." subsequently,^{registeredas Sale} Deed &.1s.03f?1il Ef,F doci.rment No.t26el2ot5^{and anotherland} to an e*tent of abut Ac.54.lO'guntas^{at Yelalgiri village,choutuppal..} J. .. when the.'rAppticants-p{1g ilemanded^{for partitionof the properties,} ..^-':,,..)''' .'I^{.''''''.Q':'''} z ::..,{i r :,ii;^,.f}i;

¶20

'-": ...... ^ "--.Fi;:^,-

¶21

the father of the Applicants has avoided the same, so, the Applicants were constrained to file partition suit on the ftle of Hon'ble XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court vide O.S.No.248l2021 and OS 45123 ard the same are pending for consideration. No notice was given to the Applicants by the Respondent Bank and recently, they came to know that the Respondents No. 1&2 approached the Ld.XVU Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. But no affidavit of the Authorized Oflicer of the Respondent Bank was liled before Ld.XVII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and the ld.Magistrate has not passed reasoned order. Obtaining the impugned orders during the pendency of a partition suit O.S.248/21 before the Honlcle XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad is bad under law. Hence, the SA.

¶22

J. Respondents No.1&2 filed their Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that the Respondent No.3 along with Mr.Shakarlal Agarwal , Anurag Agarwal M/s Shankarlal & Co rep.by Mr.Shankarlal Agarwal availed loan facilities for the^purpose of their business from the Respondent Bank and dues and so, the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 19.O3.2O21 as^per the^{guidelines of} RBI. So, the Respondent Bank issued a demand notice dt.25.03.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 calling upon the borrowers, guarantors and mortgagors to pay the outstanding dues within 60 days but they failed to do so. Subsequently, the Respondents^{No. 1&2 issued} possession notice dt. 16.09.2021 in respect of the schedule property and sent the same to borrowers/^guarantors and^{the said notice was also} published in two newspapers. Further, Applicant No. I filed SA before he Honble -I and this Hon'ble Tribunal adjudicated that the lish that the schedule property is^joint family t and others and the Applicants being a 3ra locus standi to challenge the^proceedings i#,pffi Banks. The said S,A261 122 was dismissed

¶23

ttrey are neither borrowers/guarantors/mortgagors and they are 3td parties and hence tlre Respondent Bank has no obligation to serve any notices to the Applicants. Further, with regard to the partition suits, the Respondents No.1&2 have not received notices and it is found that 0.5.45/2023 was dismissed for Default.. Accordingly, Respondents No. 1&2 prayed for the dismissal of the SA.

¶24

Respondent No.3 failed to file their counter and Reply even after availing suflicient time and so, their right of filing Counter and Reply was forfeited.

¶25

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants, Ld. Counsel for Respondents NO.1&2 and also perused the written arguments liled by them.

¶26

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶27

i) WlLether the Applicants are entitled to chalbnge the proceedings initiated by the Respondents No.1&2 before the Ld.xvII Addl.cMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct,2O02 fortaking

¶28

phgsical possession of the schedule properfu?

¶29

ii) To what relief

¶30

Polnt lVo-l7l:-

¶31

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and ld.

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents No. 1&2 reiterated their respective

¶33

versions as stated supra.

¶34

a ts further argued that the affidavit of the

¶35

Authbiized officer r Respondent Bank is not liled as contemplated

¶36

u/s 14(1) df the I Act,2OO2 and the Ld.XUI Addl.CMM,

¶37

not passed a reasoned order. He further property is joint family property of the 4

¶38

Applicants and others and so, the Applicants' father has no right to mortgage the joint family property i.e. the schedule property.

¶39

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents No.l&2 argued that the schedule property is self-acquired property of the father of the Applicants i.e. Mr. Shankarlal Agarwal and it was purchased by him with his own funds under Regd. Sale Deed No.l269 l2OL5 and it is obtained in his name and in the name of his son, Mr.Anurag Agarwal. He further argued that the Ld.XVI Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad is having every authority to pass orders under Section 14(l) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the secured asset and so, the order passed by the XVII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad is quite legal and valid. Further, the Applicants are not having any right to challenge the proceedings issued by the Ld.XVII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad being 3.a parties to the proceedings.

¶40

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the schedule property was purchased by Sri Shankarlal Agarwal i.e. father of the Applicant in the year 2015 under Regd. Sale Deed dt. 18.03.2015. When the Applicants are contending that the schedule property is purchased with the joint family funds, the burden heavily lies on them to establish the same. Even if the Applicants and their father are joint family members, it cannot be presumed that the schedule property is joint family property. Simply by filing partition suit, the Applicants cannot contend that they are having a right in the schedule property.

¶41

Further, Applicant No. 1 earlier filed SA 261122 challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondents No.t&2 for taking physical n of the schedule property and the said SA was dismissed by vide elaborate order dt.26.06 .2024 and so, the said order -judicata and the Applicants again cannot re-agitate the in the said SA26ll22.

¶42

0 5 rffi?D-f""*,

¶43

So, considering all the circumstances, I^{hold that the Applicants have} failed to establish that the schedule^{propertyis joint family property of} the Applicants and others. Further, the^Applicants being^{3rd parties} are not having locus standi to challenge^{the proceedingsinitiatedby} the Respondents No. 1&2 before XVII Addl.CMM, Nampally,^Hyderabad for taking physical possession of the schedule^property u/s^{14 of the} SARFAESI Act,2OO2. So, the^{presentSA filedby the Applicantsis liable} to be dismissed as there are no merits.^Accordingly, this^pointis answered against the Applicants and in^favour of the^Respondents No.1&2.

¶44

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶45

In the result, the^present Securitization^{Applicationis dismissed.} Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if^{any, shall} stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the partiesconcerned.}

¶47

(Dictoted to the P.A, trafiscfibed by her, @fteded, signed and^pronouncpd. by^{tuein the opetcotlrt otu thistl@5h} ofFebtudry,2026).

¶48

sd/_ (G.^q)Pr cHAr{Df PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

trgl" odi-t.^rtv":naeao.

¶50

Navneeta Agarwal v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneeta Agarwal 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

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saritha Industries

Smt Siddula Durga versus Shriram Finance Limited