Dismissed

Ms Vijaya Varma Traders v. Hdfc Bank

DRT21 Jan 2026SA/366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.A. No. 366 of 2023, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicants' plea to set aside demand and possession notices issued under the SFA, finding no violation of procedural rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interim stay order dated 14.12.2023 vacated; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Ms Vijaya Varma Traders versus Hdfc Bank — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY^{OF ]ANUARY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB.(HONS.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization Application^{No'366OF 2023}

¶6

M/s. Vijaya Varma Traders,

¶7

Rep.by its Proprietor 14r.Reddy^{RaviVarma Reddy,} S/o. Hanmantha^{Reddy, Aged 46yrs,} D,No.77lf26l7, Alur^{road, Sri Sai Industries.} Adonl, Kurnool Dist,^A.P.

¶8

Reddy Rammohan Reddy,^{S/o HanmanthaReddy,} Aged 49^yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. U2815- 1448,^{Venkatapura m,} Yemmiganuru, Kurnool^Dist, A'P'

..."..Applicants'

Versus

HDFC Bank Llmited,

Rep. by its Authorized Officer, HDFC Bank House,^{40-5-44,TikkleRoad,} VUayawada, A.P.520 O1O.

¶13

...... Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the^APPlicant : Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy

¶15

Counsel for Respondent

¶16

: Mr. N.B. Sudarshan

¶17

-: c!.8-q-E-E:-

¶18

The Applicants filed^{the present Securitisation Applicationu/s} 17 of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct, 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter)to} declare the^{proceedingsinitiatedby the respondent bank pursuant} the demand notice dated^{04.01.2023and possessionnotice dated} 02.08.2023 issued^{under Sections13(2) and 13(4) of the Act 2002,} as null and void,^{illegal and arbitraryand consequentlyset asidethe} same.

¶19

The case of the applicants,^{in brief is that they obtained} loan any from the respondent bank^{and sta rted repayment without} default. The account^{is a standard accountand nqt^PA,since} there //M/.axt-\

¶20

Page 2 of3

¶21

sA No.366/2023

¶22

was no default for continuous three months. No Prior notice was issued before classifying the account as NPA. The demand notice was not in compliance of Section 13(2),^possession notice was not served on the applicant and the same was not affixed and^published in two leading news papers hence this SA to set aside the same.

¶23

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, in brief, are that due to default committed by the applicants, loan account became NPA on 2f.10.2027 and the same was mentioned in the demand notice dated 04.01.2023. The demand notice was received by the applicants and they did not choose to make^payment or raise any objections. Hence the possession notice was issued on 02.08.2023 under section 13(4) and duly served on applicants, aFfixed on the secured property on the same day and published in'New Indlan Express' and 'Prajasakthi' English and Telugu news papers on 08.08.2023 in due compliance of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the security interest ("Enforcement") Rules 2002 ("Rules" hereinafter). The instant SA is filed only to evade the outstanding amount due and hence SA is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants stated orders may be passed based on records.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused material record.

¶25

The points for consideratlon are as follows : -

¶26

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule properties as prayed for?

¶27

ii) To what relief? 6g*

Page 3 of 3

sA No.366/2023

Point No.(i):

Admittedly, the applicants availed^{credit facilities fromthe} respondent bank. The statement^{of accountfiled by the respondent} bank reflects irregularity.^{Except bald denial that the accountwas} standard, the applicants have^{not substantiatedthe same by filing} any^proof material,^{Hence the contention cannot be accepted. As per} documents annexed to the^{reply statement,the applicants received} the demand notice containing all^{requisite particulars including date} of NPA as 21.10.2021.^{Considering pages24 to 35 annexedto the} reply statement which are filed as^{proof of service, affixture and} publication of the possession notice, I find^no truth^{in the contention} of the applicants that^{possession noticewas not served, published} and affixed accordingly^{the contentiondoes not deserve acceptance'}

¶32

In view of the^{abundant proof, I find no infractionof Sections} 13(2), 13(4) of the Act and the^{Rules8(1) and 8(2) of 2002' It is} concluded that the applicants^{failed to make out any valid ground to} set aside the^{possession notice} and^{accordingly, SA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶33

Point No.(ii):

¶34

In the result, the Securitization^{fails is hereby dismissed.} 10. Consequently, interim^{stay order dated 14.12'2023 shall stand} vacated and the Interlocutory^{Applications pendingif any, shall stand} closed. Communicate a copy of this order^{to the partiesconcerned} and upload in the official^website.

¶35

(Typed to my dictdtion by the P5, corrected, signed ond^pronounced by meⁱⁿ the^{opencourt on this} the 21't doy of Jonuory, 2026).

¶36

¶37

HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Vijaya Varma Traders v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vijaya Varma Traders v. Hdfc Bank

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

Mr James Ratan Swamy versus Central Bank of India

B Suneetha versus Union Bank of India

Panda Jaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

M/s.Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Chithra Siva Ramakrishnan

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Neela Vijaya Rao

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Kummari Sunitha