Allowed

T Eshwara Chary v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT10 Jul 2026SA/381/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application filed by the applicant against the Respondent Bank. The applicant challenged a possession notice dated 04.05.2026 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, alleging procedural violations. The Respondent did not appear. The Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the possession notice due to the absence of proof r

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed. Possession notice dated 04.05.2026 set aside. Pending Interlocutory Applications disposed of.

T Eshwara Chary versus Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company… — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAI.I^{AT ITYI'ERABAI)} DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OT'JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESEI{T: SRI GUMMN)I GOPICHAND,^{PRFSIDING OFFICER}

¶3

SA.No.381 of 2o26

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr. T. Eshwara Chary, S/o T. Veerabhadra^Chary, Aged abou 42^{years,occ: Auto} Driver, R/o H.No.4-^109, Ramalayam street,^LakshmiPuram Kodad, SuryaPet -^{508 206.}

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ALCHEMIST^{Asset Reconstruction} Company Ltd, A-270, First^{& Second floor,} Defence colonY,^{NewDelhi- ll0O24'} Represented^{by its Authorised oflicer}

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel^{for the Parties:}

¶11

ShriT. Sridhar^ReddY Counsel for^APPlicant ResPondent Exparte 07.o7.2026 Reserved^on 1o.o7.2026 Pronounced^on to.o7.2026 Uploaded^{in website on}

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The t filed Securitisation^{Applicationunder Section 17 of the} d Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enforcement} i7,#-'"^{*r,:,i 'vg'} Act,2OO2^{challengingthe Possessionnotice dated} J, rl,' of Sep-tirity^Int by respondent^{bank under SARFAESI Act and} i,_ iirtW'rof,.oflfl0ffi6 is

¶14

(SA.No.38U2025)

¶15

without following the rules,^{provisions,regulations and procedures as} prescribed under SARFAESI Act.

¶16

c The case of the applicant in^{brief is that applicant herein availed loan} from respondent bank^{and was regular in repayingthe instalments'} While things stood thus,^{on 04.O6.2026some persons visited the} schedule^{property and demanded to vacateand hand overthe physical} possession of property.^{It is submittedthat the respondent bankfailed} to follow the due^{process of law and issued the possessionnotice} regarding schedule^{propertyof applicationwhich is illegal and arbitrary} andinviolationofSARFAEsIActandrulesmadethereunder.The respondent bank^{failed to issue/ serve the possession notice and} respondent bank^{also failed to affix the possession notice at the} conspicuous^{place of the property and also failed to publish in two} leading newspapers^{and therebynot followed the procedure prescribed} under Rule^{8(1) and (2)' Hence prayedto set asideall the measures} initiated by^{respondentbank under SARFAESIAct'2002' Hencethe SA'}

¶17

c. Notice served^{to Respondent'Respondent called absentand set} exparte.

¶18

Heard the^{argumentsof Applicant Counsel'}

¶19

. iEaq iUE?uiqt^{for considerationis}

¶20

appticant has^{estabtishedans uatid srounds for} #.-';ffi Nottce dated^{04.0s.2026 issaedbs the} ti; 1 0 ",flftWr;4possession nespondent$i:iik^{against the scledule properfu?} \ft'o .* ''r,ii;h:1gq,i,i# 2

(sA.No.38U2026)

iil To What Relieft

Point no.i)

As stated supra, t}le Respondent Bank remained ex_parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to the foflowing of due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the Rules made thereunder while enforcing the security interest over the application schedule property by the Respondent Bank, the present Securitisation Application has to be allowed by setting aside the possession Notice dt.4.O5.2O26 issued by the Respondent Bank u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 against the application schedule property. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶25

Point no.iif

¶26

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt.04. 05.2026 issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property.

¶27

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

9. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶29

transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open of Julg, 2026)

¶30

sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OF'FICER

¶31

"zl**

T Eshwara Chary v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Eshwara Chary v. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

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

Mrs Dongari Dhanalaxmi versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Ooha Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Vempati Sudha Rani

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S.Ismail Traders

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vaibhava Laxmi SHO Group

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Shg Lingayipalli Group