Dismissed

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja v. Bank of India

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the applicants' challenge to the bank's recovery measures, finding no infraction of Section 13 or Rule 8 after reviewing the service records.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.336 of 2024 is dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja versus Bank of India — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF N4ARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), tvl.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.336 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Allam Raqunath

¶6

Aged a bout 50 years Occ:Business, R/o Plot No.93 Balamrai Co-operative Housing Society 4th N4ain,srh Cross, l4ahendra Hills

¶7

East Ma redpa lly, Secunderabad

¶8

Mrs. Alla msetty Shailaja Aged a bout 45 years Occ:Housewife, R/o Plot No.93 Balamrai Co-operative Housing Society 4th lYain,5th Cross, Mahendra Hills

¶9

East Maredpally, Secundera bad

.......Applicants.

Versus

Bank of India

O/o MCH No.8-2-403l4m Ground Floor Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034 Rep. by Authorized Officer

¶14

..... Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Kranthi Kumar Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶16

-:.q_B_qll:-

¶17

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants uls.77 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial^Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^("Act" hereinafter^for short) to set aside all the measures of respondent bank including action to take^{physicalpossession} of SA schedule^{propertypursuant} to advocate commissioner notice dated 25.07.2024ⁱⁿ Crl.MP^No.2373 /AK,;'\ (_,.

¶18

Page 2 of4

¶19

SA No. 336/2024

¶20

of 2024 on the file of^{learnedX Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,} Secunderabad.

¶21

The averments of the applicatlon,^{briefly, are that the} applicants availed home^{loan from respondentby executing relevant} documents and creating mortgage^{over SA schedulepropertyas} security. They defaulted in^payment of^{EMISdue to financialcrunch} on account of business losses. Without^{considering the request to} settte the account, respondent bank^{initiated action the SARFAEIS} Act. Challenging the earlier sale notice dated^{04.08.2020,applicants} filed SA 139/2020 before this Tribunal^{and compliedthe conditional} order by depositing Rs.13 lakhs with^{respondent bank. The SA was} dismissed for default. Tlll today demand^{notice u/s 13(2) and} possession notice u/s 13(4) have not been served. Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of SARFAESI Rules have not been followed before taking^impugned action to take^{physical possession} of schedule^{property.Hencethis} SA.

¶22

The respondent bank filed reply statement along^with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that after availlng home loan of Rs.79 lakhs, appllcants failed to^pay EMIS as^per agreed terms, hence account became NPA on 31.10.2019. Demand notice dated 10.03.2020 and^possession notice dated 79.06.2020 weTe sent by registered^post to applicants, besides^publishing and affixing the possession notice in compliance of Rule 8(1) and 8(2). Rule 8(6) and 9(1) notice fixing auction on 09.09.2020 was duly sent by registered post, published and affixed the sale notice. After dismissal of SA No.139/2020 for default, respondent bank approached learned x Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sec.14 of the Act seeking orders for taking physical possession. The respondent bank strictly followed due^procedure and hence sA is tiabte to be dismBsed/7W'd5*

¶23

Page 3 of4

¶24

SA No.335/2024

¶25

Learned counsel for applicants reported orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondent bank. Perused the material brought on record.

¶26

The^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶27

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing any of the measures imitated by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property including dispossession, as prayed for?

¶28

ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No,(i):

¶30

Admittedly, the applicants committed default in repayment^of home loan. Hence action of classification of account as^{NPA and} initiating SARFAESI measures cannot be matter of^question.

¶31

It is also an admitted fact that the applicants earlier filed^SA No.139/2020 challenging the sale fixed on 09.09.2020 and the^same was dismissed for default. Sale did not materialise. All^{the issues} pertaining to non-compliance of Secs.13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002 should have been^raisedin that SA. However, in the^present SA, the Respondent^{Bank reliedon} copies of documents annexed to the reply statement^{as proof of} compliance of due^procedure. A^perusal of the same^{confirmsthat the} Applicants were served with demand notice dated^10.03.2020, possession notice dated 19.06.2020, and the^possession notice^was published in 'Business Standard' and 'Mana Telangana' newspapers on 20.06.2020 and affixed on the^{scheduledproperty. I find no} infraction of Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the^{Act and RuJqs B(1) and 8(2) of} 2002. Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismiss^eA. ffi75b

Page 4 of 4

SA No.336/2024

Point No.(ii):

B. In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶36

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶38

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26'h doy of March, 2026).

¶39

MESHWAR KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja v. 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

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Bagat Shopping Mall.

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs K Vinodini versus Indian Bank

M/s. Bank of Baroda. versus Sri. Ravi Amgoth

Utlapally Ramesh versus Vardhaman MAhila Cooperative Urban Bank