Dismissed

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak v. State Bank of India

DRT10 Apr 2026SA/410/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. Upholding the bank's compliance with statutory procedures regarding notice service and asset publication, the court vacated a stay on possession measures and dismissed the applicant's petition.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; stay vide order dated 13.12.2024 in I.A. No.2837 of 2024 vacated; pending Interlocutory Applications closed.

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak versus State… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 410 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. P. Varadarajulu, S/o. Late Chinnaiah Modali, Situated at Sy.No.112, lvlain Road, Yadamari Village & Post Yadamari Mandal Chittoor Distrlct

¶6

. ..... .Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of Ind ia Rep. by its Authorized Officer Chittor I\4ain Branch, Situated at Chittoor, Chittoor District

¶9

...... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. G. Prabhakar Sharma

¶12

-:.O-B-DEB:-

¶13

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants u/s.U of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial^Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^("Act" hereinafter^for short) assailing^possession notice dated 04.09.2024^issued by^the respondent bank against the SA schedule^property.

¶14

The case of applicant in brief ls that the Applicant availed CC Stocks Loan and subsequently GECL loan from the Respondent^Bank for the development of his business, secured by mortgage^of immovable property situated at Yadamari !!llage, Yagamari^Mandal, mixt\

¶15

Page 2 of 6

¶16

sA No. 410/2024

¶17

Chittoor District,^{comprislng Survey No'86/22A (0 03 acres) and} Sy.No.86/5^{(0.17acres), aggregatingabout 162 sq yards along with} the buildlng.^{The loan account was declaredNPAallegedly without} proper consideration^{of his regular paymentsTheRespondentissued} a Demand^{Notice dated 30.08.2023,whichwas not properly served'} Thereafter,^{applicantapproachedthe RespondentBank'madepartial} payments, and requested^{restraint from SARFAESI proceedings while} arranging to^{settle the account.Despite this, the Respondent issued a} second Demand^{Noticedated 30.Ol} '2024^{showingan outstanding} amount of^{Rs 28,11,OBO/-.The Applicantflled a detailed reply dated} 26.03.2024 under^{Section 13(3A)and, prior to and afterthat'} deposited a^{total ofRs.2,01,118/-between22'03 2024and} 29.o3.2024,^{which the Bank neither credited nor acknowledged'} Subsequently,^{without withdrawingthe earlier noticesor issuinga} fresh, valid demand^{noticeunder Section 13(2) as on 0l'07 '2024'} the Respondent^{abruptly issued the impugnedPossessionNotice} dated 04.09.2024^{under Section 13(4) The Applicant submits that} thls notice^{wasneither served on him nor affixedat a conspicuous} place on the mortgaged^{property,and was not publishedin two} leading newspapers^{(includingone in the vernacular language)'as} mandatorily required^{under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Securitv} Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules"for short)'} and that the^{propertydescriptionin the notice also differs from the} mortgage deed.^{To demonstratebona fides, the Applicant further} deposited^{Rs.81,OOO/-on 72.09.2024and has been seekinga one-} Time Settlement but^{there is no cooperationfrom the Respondent} With these contentions,^{applicantprays for setting aside of the} impugned SARFESI^{measures against} -^{the SA SchequleProperty'}

,@-'-ou:-u

Page 3 ofG

sA No. 410/2024

Respondent Bank filed reply statement with documents. The submissions of the respondent bank, in brief, are: The Applicant had availed a Cash Credit Stocks (SBF) loan facility of Rs.26,70,000/- in Account No.39992488578 from 2021 onwards, secured by hypothecation of stocks, book debts, receivables, and immovable property as described in the Schedule of Property. Due to the Applicant's failure to repay the loan, the Respondent Bank classified the account as an NPA. The Respondent Bank issued Demand Notices dated 30.08.2023 and 30.01.2024, which were subsequently withdrawn after the Applicant made partial payments. However, the account again became an NPA on 29.06.2024, leading the Bank to issue a fresh Demand Notice daled 0t.07.2024 for an amount of Rs.27,59,804/-, together with interest and costs. As the Applicant failed to comply, the Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and issued a Possession Notice dated 04.09.2024, which was duly served on the Applicant through registered post (acknowledged), amxed at the scheduled property, and published ln two newspapers (The Hindu and Eenadu) on 06.09.2024, as required under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of Rules, 2002. Respondent Bank asserts that all statutory procedures have been strictly followed, that all notices were duly served and acknowledged, that the payments were properly credited, and that the Possession Notice was correctly published and afflxed. The Respondent Bank further submits that the Applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and is merely attempting to stall and delay the legitimate recovery proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court decision ln Standard Chartered Bank v. V, Noble Kumar, (2073) 9 SCC 620, the Bank submits that the present Securitization Application is not maintainable, as the Applicant has not yet lost possession of the secured asset. The Respondent Bank, therefore, prays for dismissal of the SA with costs in the interest of justice.

/N"ort

Page 4 of 6

SA No.410/2024

Learned Counsel^{for the Applicantreported order may be} passed based on records.^{Heard Learned Counsel for the Respondent} Bank. Perused^{the material brought on record'}

¶26

During the course^{of arguments,learned Counsel for the} Respondent^{Bank reiteratedthe versionas in the reply statement'} that consequent^{upon default in repayment, recovery proceedings} were initiated^{and that the demand notice and possession notice were} dulyserved,withthepossessionnoticehavingbeenaffixedonthe secured^{property and publishedin English and Telugu newspapers'} The respondent^{bank has meticulouslyfollowed the procedure} prescribed under the^{provisions of the Act and the Rules of 2002'} Learned counsel^{accordingly prayed for dismissal of the SA as devoid} of merits.

¶27

The^points for^{consideration are as follows : -}

¶28

i) Whether the^{appticantsmadeou.t any valid grould for.} quashing the^{possession noticedated 04'09'2024 issued}

¶29

under section^{13(4) ot the Securitization Act?}

¶30

ii) To what relief?

¶31

Point No.(i):

¶32

Admittedly,^{the applicantavailed} CC Stocks Loan^and of Schedule^{Property as} subsequently^{GECL loan againstmortgage} security and failed^{to make payment as} per repayment schedule. Hence the action^{of the respondent bank} in initiating the^SARFESI proceedings cannot be^{termedas illegal or} irregular as^contendedbY the applicant. 4h'*o

¶33

Page 5 of5

¶34

SA No. 410/2024

¶35

One of the contentions raised by the Applicant is that^no response was filed by the Respondent Bank to the objections^raised by the Applicant under Section 13(34) of the SARFAESI Act.^Firstly, applicant has not^placed proof of serving objections on respondent bank. Secondly, the objections were directed against the demand notice dated 30.01.2024, which was subsequently superseded by the fresh demand notice dated 0f .07.2024. Since the earlier demand notice dated 30.01.2024 is no longer operative, the Applicant's contention relating to non-compliance of Section 13(34) is not^valid and needs no consideration.

¶36

The respondent bank filed material documents along with reply statement as^proof of compliance of due^procedure of law. Pages^{1 to} 8 of the material^papers annexed to the reply statement are^the Photostat copies of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 9 to 22 are the Photostat copies of^possession notice being served via registered^post and duly acknowledged by the applicant,^photographs as^proof of affixture on secured assets and^publication of the same^{in Englishand} Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 06.09.2024. The documents placed on record by the respondent bank^remain undisputed. In view of sufficient^{proof place} on record, I^{find no} infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the respondent^bank initiated the SARFESI^proceedings, which cannot be categorized^as illegal or arbitrary.

¶37

The respondent bank filed statement of account reflecting a number of credit entries. None of the documents filed by^the respondent bank including the statement of account is disputed^by /ilY.o-\ (:/

¶38

Page 6 of 6

¶39

SA No.410/2024

¶40

Hence averment^{of non-creditingof the amounts has} the applicant. no basis.

¶41

In view of^{above observations,itis concluded that the} applicants failed^{to establish any groundto set aside the measure} from taking^{physical possessionby the respondent bank underthe} Act, 2002 against^{the SA scheduleproperty and accordingly the SA is} liable o be dismissed.

¶42

Point No.(ii):

¶43

t2'Intheresult,theSecuritisationApplicationfailsandishereby dismissed.

¶44

Consequently,^{the stay granted vide order dated 13'12'2024in} I.A.No.2837 of^{2024 in the SA standsvacated'}

¶45

L4. The Interlocutory^{Applications pending, if any, shall stand} closed. No order^{as to costs.}

¶46

l5.commUnicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the official^website'

¶47

(Typed to my dictotion by the^{PS,corrected,signedondpronouncedby mein the opencourt on thisthe} 7o'h doy of Aprit,2026). /.7<l ,/\y*'o:u SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/s. S N Agro Trading.

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

K Veerender Reddy versus City Union Bank Limited

Varalakshmamma Powerlooms versus City Union Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M Chakrapani

Union Bank of India versus Mullaguri Rammohan