Allowed

Bandameeda Venkata Narayana v. Aptus Finance India Private Limited

DRT7 Aug 2026SA/416/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside measures initiated by the respondent under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 of the SARFAESI Act due to procedural non-compliance regarding notices and possession, directing the return of property.

What did the court decide?

Measures under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 of the Act set aside; SA Schedule Property redelivered to applicants; Interlocutory Applications closed.

Bandameeda Venkata Narayana versus Aptus Finance India… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 416 OF 2026

¶5

Bandameeda Venkata Narayana, S/o. Madhavappa, Hindu, Aged about 48 Years,

¶6

Bandameeda Lakshmi, W/o. Bandameeda Venkata Narayana, Hindu, aged about 43^years,

¶7

Both are residents at D.No. 1-34/118, B.C. Colony, Paipalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh-515201

¶8

........Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Aptus Finance India Private Limited, Dharmavaram Branch, D.No. 25-442, Flat No. 38, 1st floor, Revenue Ward, Parthasaradhi Naga r, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Branch Legal Officer & Authorized Officer .... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. R. Kambagiri Raju Counsel for Respondent : Ex-parte

¶12

-:9_B_p_EB:-

¶13

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants u/s.L7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent company under section 13(2), 13(4) & 14 of the Act, including the action of taking physical ,, Oort"tttonffir\possession oflhe SA Schedule Property via

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

sA No.416/2026

¶16

warrant notice dated^{24.08'2026in Crl'M'P'No '44 of 2026 on the file} of Hon'ble^{PSCJAnantapuram District'}

¶17

The averments^{in the application,briefly stated' are that} applicants had^{purchasedthe scheduleproperty undera registered} Sale Deed^{dated 15.03.2023 and, after creating an equitable} mortgage in^{favour of the respondent, availed a housingloan'} However defaulted^{in repayment of the loan due to financial} construct,consequentlytheaccountWaSWrongfullyclassifiedasNPA. ItisfurthercontendedthattheDemandNoticeissuedunderSection 13(2) was not duly^{served,no opportunitywas afforded to submit} objections^{in terms of Section 13(3A), and the PossessionNotice} underSectiont3(4)wasneitherservednoraffixedonthesecured asset and^{published in accordancewith the Security Interest} (Enforcement) Rules,2002^{(hereinafter"Rules"for short)' The} applicantsfurtherchallengetheproceedingsinitiatedunderSection 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act in crl.M.P.No.44of 2026, contending that the} learned Magistrate^{mechanicallypassedthe order withoutsatisfying} the mandatory^{requirements prescribed under section 14 of the Act.} Hence, applicants^{pray for interdicting the measuresinitiated by the} respondent against^{the SA Schedule Property.}

¶18

Summons served^{on respondentcompany and wasset ex-parte} on 28.07.2026 as called^{absentand no representation'}

¶19

Heard learned counsel^{for the applicants. Perused the material} brought on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the^{applicantsreiterated the averments} madeintheSecuritisationApplicationandsubmittedthatthe respondent company^{had wrongly classifiedthe loan account as a} NPA.Itwasfurthercontendedthattherespondentcompany.failedto

N"$*

Page 3 of4

SA N0.416/2026

duly serve the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) and^the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, and also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the measures initiated by the respondent company against the SA schedule property.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material available on record. The principal contention of the applicants is that the Respondent Company has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAES ott and Rules' 2002 while initiating measures against the .".," asset' It is well settled that the secured creditor ,, oornr"uo strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the Act an and any deviation From the mandatory provisions ,oo,tn" ^''ut' thereunder. r, an" o*."r,i"uld .^{vitiate the} measures initiated Respondent .;;;;;";":'e' despite due service or summons, the havins rai,ed,; ;;";;il:::^: i:n"^{n appearance.} Accordins,y, Respondent .;";; ';",":::i:.,,'t.: sranted by this rribunar, the mareriar praced ;, ;";; consequenuy, there is no ,"j' ::_:"* allegations , ,"r-."rr,,"r.tl i::t'o*" or disprove the specific averments made by;;":;;;;.:^.:-:^the statutorv provisions. rhe unchalenged. ".T1^ln"t**,^remain unrebutted and " ,n" "ir",i." Tribunar rinds no reason ; ;:^.:l evrdence to the contrary, this :,H:::^" o"o,.o' n, r," In " ffi ;:H: ;::,,.:T:, :":"T":1",1"" 6. In the by setting company in +"::" J "'J^{",rT:l##+.:[:?T'.j:,#::} -"ffiuincludine the

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

SA No. 4L612o26

¶28

issuance of demand^{notice under section13(2) and possession notice} under section^{13(4) of the Act'}

¶29

is directed^{to redeliver the} 7. Consequently,^{respondentcompany} PropertY^{to aPPlicantsand} physical^{possession of the SA Schedule} Interlocutory^{Applications pending'if any'} shall stand^closed'

¶30

B, No order^{as to costs'}

¶31

g.CommunicateaCopyofthisordertothepartiesConcernedand upload^{in the official website'}

¶32

ste^{n o' cor r e cte d' si s n e d o n d p r o n o u nce d} ov ^,fi,^!!^l'i'.^:Ii' ( frKffi; ;fr;iDir*c^orncrn

¶33

ff :,i,: ;ii^{fi;'::: :l;:;}

Bandameeda Venkata Narayana v. Aptus Finance India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandameeda Venkata Narayana v. Aptus Finance India Private 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

Bank of Baroda versus Kakumani Varun Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Surya Enterprises.

Malagari Pavan versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Mr S Nagendra versus Union Bank of India Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Om Sri Shyam Medicals.

Canara Bank versus Totus Health Care India Limited