Dismissed

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

DRT20 Jul 2026SA/349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act proceeding, applicants challenged order of District Magistrate allowing secured creditor to take possession via advocate commissioner, alleging procedural violation for non-service of notices and newspapers. Tribunal dismissed challenge, finding procedural compliance valid.

What did the court decide?

Application set aside as peremptory dismissal; interlocutory applications consequential dismissed.

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indusind Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOF JULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.349/2024

¶5

M/s Maha Bharati Foot Wear India P.Ltd., Rep. by its Director M.Vijaya Bharathi W/o Late M.Mahankali Rao, Occ:business, aged 60 years, R/o H.No.22-8-290, Hamid Plaza, Nayapool, Hyderabad-500002.

¶6

Mr.M.Bhanu Prasad S/o M.Mallula Mahankali Rao, Occ:business, aged 45 years, R/o 11-15-110, Road No.4, Doctors Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, R.R.District-S0O 035.

¶7

Mrs.M.Vijaya Bharathi, W/o Late M.Mahankali Rao, Occ:business, aged 60 years, R/o 11-15-110, Road No.4, Doctors Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, R.R.District-500 035

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorized Officer Indusind Bank Ltd.,

¶11

l-a-448, Sardar Patel Road, Begumpet, Sec.bad-SOo 003.

¶12

The chief Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd., l-8-448, Sardar Patel Road, Begumpet, Sec.bad-50O O03

¶13

? 1 ,lut mr
a.-

¶14

Counsel for tLe Applicants Counsel for Respondents

¶15

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶16

: O7.O7.2O26 :2O.O7.2026 : 2O.O7.2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application^{is irledby the Applicantsu/s'17 of the SARFAESIAct'} 2OO2, challenging^{the proceedingsinitiated by the Respondentsfor} taking^{physicalpossession of the scheduleproperties through Advocate} commissioner^{pursuant to the orders of Ld'VIII Addl'CMM'Nampally'} Hyderabad^{in Crl.M.P.No.514124 andto declare the same as illegaland} void.

¶19

The averments^{madein the application, in brief' are that:} Applicants are the^{absolute owners ofthe schedulepropertiesand they} availed mortgage^{loan from the Respondents and createdmortgage} against the schedule^{propertiesin security to the said loan' However'} duetoCovid-19'thebusinessoftheApplicantswentintolossandso' could not^{pay someinstalments' Withoutserving demandnotice and} possession notice to the^{Applicants,the Respondents straightway} proceeded for taking^{physicalpossessionof scheduieproperties} pursuant to the orders^{of Ld.VIII Addl'CMM, Nampally' Hyderabad and} the advocate commissioner^{visited the scheduleproperties andserved} a notice demanding^{the Applicantsto hand over the physicalpossession} oftheschedulepropertiesandso,thesaidproceedingsarenotlegal andvalid.Theimpugnedpossessionnoticewasnotpublishedintwo daily newspapers^{and also not affixed on the scheduleproperties as} contemplat 1)&(2) of Security^{Interest(Enforcement)Rules,}

¶20

d. gP u7 \ llly 3. t{ fl "og"1.fnf nf^{tl-,1};tv denving .]l'n'} "o*::',"1*'.:': .'@.i., ,fr"^{'Si?"i L"tsffdid that the Applicantsavailedloan from} committed default^{in rePaYmentof} tfre Rdspdndents an lr o an^r, d.ues.'$&'iliUcffi$fiffents arr.".b&tnug;(^{issued demand notice and possession} "",i".^{trX"rrlr?[ffijd the procedure' Thereafter'the Respondents} proceeded u/s 14 of^{the Act,2OO2 and obtained orders from the of}

¶21

Ld.VIII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.M.p.No.5t2l24 lor appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicants to vacate the schedule properties and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶24

i. ulrcther the Applicants haue established. ang ualid. ground.s for challenging the proceedings initiated by *w Respondents for taking

¶25

phgsical possession of the sctedule properties u/s 14 of the SARIAESIAcI, 2 0O2 through aduocate commissioner?

¶26

ii. To u.that relief ?

¶27

Point .t\Io.(t):-

¶28

6' During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsei for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed loan from the Res mortgage against the schedule properties

¶30

and th in repaying the loan dues dnd so, the Respondendi under the provisions of daRf.RBSt nct, 2002 for t'iking of the schedule Froperties.

¶31

The specific contention^{of the Applicants is that the Respondentwithout} servingdemandnoticeandpossessionnoticeandwithoutfollowingRule 8(1)&(2) of Rules,^{2OO2, straightaway,initiatedproceedings for taking} physical possession of the^{schedule propertiesthroughadvocate} commissioner u/ s^{14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and so' the said} proceedings are null and^void.

¶32

Per contra, Respondents^{contendedthat Applicants availedloan from the} Respondents against^{the mortgage of scheduleproperties.After availing} the loan, the Applicants^{admittedly committed defaultin repaying the loan} dues and so, the^{loan accountwas classifiedas NPA as per the guidelines} of RBI and the^{Respondentsissued demand notice and possessionnotice} to the Applicants^{by dulyfollowing the procedure contemplatedunder the} provisions of SARFAESI^{Act' 2OO2 and Rules made thereunderand} thereafter,^{initiatedproceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act' 2OO2 for} taking^{physical possession of the schedule properties by followingdue} process of law.

¶33

To substantiate^{their contention, the Respondents hled material} documents along^{with the Reply filed by them' As per the said documents'} it is clear that the^{Respondents issueddemand notice dt'27'O9 '2021 uls} 13(2)oftheSARAFAESIAct,2OO2andsentthesaidnoticetothe Applicants and^{others through Regd' Post as evidencedby the postal} the Respondients.^{The Respondents also}

¶34

acknowledgements !n^{two daily newspapers as evidenced}

¶35

published the said CA by the ResPondents.^{When the} with id demand^{notice, ResPondents} /s^{13(a)ofthe Act,2002 and the}

¶36

issued^{possessionnQtide} flfl-Offi^' Applicants^{through Regd.Postas} ents filed^{bY the Bank. The said}

¶37

evidenced^bYI bnglish daily^{newspapersas evidenced} hled by the^{Respondents and the said}

¶38

by the coPies^of

¶39

¶40

notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondents. Thus, the Respondents have duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice in respect the schedule properties.

¶41

¶42

As per the provisions of section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured assets_ In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondents being secured creditors, approached of Ld.VIII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by hling Crl.M.p.No.512l24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties. Ld.vlII Addl.cMM, Nampaliy, Hyderabad after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicants to vacate the schedule properties and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicants and challenging the same, the Applicants filed the present SA. So, the said proceedings are perfectry legal and valid.

¶43

12 - so, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the sched qfe -prdpe R/s^{14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly,} . 'r/ -.',r,\4't this noir(i$ vour of the Respondents and against the ApplicarPs.

¶44

Polnt No.(li)t

¶45

is dismissed^{as there are no merits'}

¶46

1. In the result,^{SA 349} 124

¶47

pending if anY, shall^stand

¶48

1. Consequently,^{the InterlocutoryApplications,} disposed of.^{No order as to costs'}

¶49

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

¶50

(Dictated to the^P.S, transcibed by^{her,conected,signedand'pronouncedby me in the open} court on this^the20'h day of Julg,^2O26)

¶51

sd/_ (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶52

I t1ul.il6
. ;r.

¶53

did'firy* ,i,1.'rffioo'

¶54

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

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

Indian Bank versus Mr. Sarvasetty Suresh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sheshu Sarikonda

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vinayaka Textiles

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S. Madhava Indane

Thumolla Radhakishan versus Omprakash Deora People Cooperative Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddapaka Ramesh