Dismissed

Mohd Imamuddin Siddiqui v. Karnataka Bank Limited

DRT21 Jul 2026SA/422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application challenging a Sale Notice and possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The Tribunal found no violation of procedural requirements as notice was duly served and published. The sale notice relief became infructuous as the auction was not materialized.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed; Respondent Bank dismissed the sale notice. Interlocutory applications disposed of.

Mohd Imamuddin Siddiqui versus Karnataka Bank Limited — RTI and Transparency | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.422/2025

¶5

Mohd.lmamuddin Siddiqui, S/o MOhd. Muneerudddin Siddiqui, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o flat No.402, 4th floor, Falcon Crest, H.No.5- 1 -564lC&5- 1 -56 1 /D, Kuche Syed Jung, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad-sOO 005.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer Plot No.50, Srinagar Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 034.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Sn ?. Sidhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Sn lf.Rama Rao

¶11

Reserued on : 13.07.2O26 Pronounced on :21.07.2026 Uploaded on :21.07.2O26

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2O25 issued by the Respondent Ban.k for conducting action of the schedule property I t 't -it,"' '';P:;+ i '^'' id^ss":' ..'.1.: ' I 1 1 11 1 f , I ' I

¶14

and also tfg#, itiated by the Bank for taking physical "'/'^{-'sS*'' ''''"iT'''}

¶15

possessiois the sciredule. rty through Advocate commissioner -to

¶16

pursuant rsuant^' to th 11re\€:1'sI'&* ***** 'ordif orders 3o\ Ld .II .II Addl.CJM . , H vy derabad in ,t-

¶17

Cr1.M.P."N o.I@ ru51;p4?ffi..r&$ the same as illegal and void.

¶18

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶19

The Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank and the he was regularly paying the instalments. Suddenly on04.lO.2025, some persons claiming to be the recovery agents of the^{Bankalong with} advocate commissioner visited the schedule^property and demanded the Applicant to vacate the schedule^property and they furnished^copies of vacate notice and sale notice to the Applicant. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightway proceeded for taking physical^possession of schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.ll Addl.CJM, Hyderabad. The bank also issued Sale notice dt.29.08.2]25 for conducting auction of the schedule property without issuing 30 days prior to sale notice which is illegal and arbitrary and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property as contemplated u/ r 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Tt.e Bank failed to complywith Rule 8(5)(6)&9(1) of Ru1es,2002. Hence the SA.

¶20

The Respondent Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed Home loan of Rs.40 lakhs from the Bank against the mortgage of schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan dues. So, the Respondent classified the loan account of the Applicant as NPA on 10.06.2023 in a ce with the guidelines of RBI and issued demand notice by duly following the procedure. Notice dt.29.o8.2o25 and the said others and the same was published affixed on the schedule property. u/s 14 of the Act, 2OO2 and ,^{Hyderabad for appointment of} physical possession of the schedule

¶21

property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶24

i. uthether the Applicant has establisled ang ualid grounds for challenging the Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2O25 issued bg the bank and also the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical

¶25

possession of the schedule propertg u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2 0 02 through aduocate commissioner?

¶26

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶27

Point No.(if :-

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

The undisputed fac are that the Applicant availed loan from the Bank and,;i'qgated i&,g+tred rrftfu1E6g. against the schedule property and thereafter, qflrrtftr,: i tted ;,.i gr,"i,'i]$1ffifault "iF\ \paying the loan dues and so, the nespondenii ii'iii.t.a led roteedln p ffi..ai., g s "1a$.r un the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for,j1ti."* *''r+t+ttn?i?S""iSii1 the schedule property and also

¶30

issued S al6.,.Jt[j]ticgald.'.{}tic€ d t. t. 2 9. 08. 9.08.20?{;p/conducting 2 O?5 ;p/conductin g auction of the schedule

¶31

Pronertv' \ ; }'r**.r.1:;ig-t--,',lr - _': .)8,, _. ....:In" -.*qj;.i..".:

¶32

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving any prior notices, issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2O25 for conducting auction ofthe schedule^property also initiated^proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule^property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the^said proceedings are null and void.

¶33

Per contra, Respondent contended that Applicant admittedly^committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent^issueddemand notice, possession notice and sale notice to the Applicant by duly following the procedure contemplated under the^provisions of SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2} and Rules made thereunder and thereafter, initiated^proceedings u/s¹⁴ of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking^{physical possession} of the^schedule property by following due process of law.

¶34

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply hled by them. As^per the said documents, it^{is clear} that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.17.O7.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and guarantors through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent and the said notice^{was also} published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper -f-'*'-

¶35

publication Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the A ii:'rngr." [f t failed to comply with the said demand nesffident possession notice dt.03.1 1.2023 uls *

¶36

13(4) e oT,fopp a-r!$ the ! possession notice was sent to the Engiish daily n and the said notice was also afhxed on the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2)

¶37

of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice in respect the schedule property. Thereafter, the bank issued Sale Notice dt.29 .O8.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property and the said sale notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the copies of postal acknowledgements filed by the bank. The said sale notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property as evidenced by the material documents filed by the bank. However during the course of arguments, Ld.counsel for the Respondent bank submitted that the proposed auction in respect of the schedule property pursuant to the Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2025 was not materialized. So, the relief claimed by the Applicant in respect of the sale notice dt.29.08.2025 becomes infructuous.

¶38

As per the provisions ofSection 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, 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 Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.ll Addl.CJM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing Crl.M.P.No.109 125 lor appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.lI Addl.CJM, Hyderabad after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate coqlmissl-o4.gr issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule pr.eper$...,:qfl d bE!:\ notice was admittedly served on the Appricant' d"-.-FS...',f*:^{perrectryregar and varid.} il'.!li'"ti

¶39

t2. so. .o.,"ia.l[i ;,t.J[l["7.ffi",..[[, , am or the opinion rhar the i't !-ir.J /, Applicant i" tiit..Sitt.d to anygsiff{ there are no merirs in the SA. So, I see no gror.thilr',wEra**i#rjfftfference of this Tribunal with the proceedings i"itiadd:fi nt for taking physical possession of

¶40

the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act,2002.Accordingly, this} point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against^{the Applicant.}

¶41

Potnt No.(ii)t

¶42

In the result , SA 422 I 25 is dismissed as^{there are no merits. The} Respondent Bank is at liberty to issue^{fresh sale notice by duly following} the procedure contemplated under the^{provisionsof SARFAESIAct,2OO2} and Rules made thereunder.

¶43

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if^{any, shall stand} disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, conected, signed and^pronounced by^{me in the open} courl on this the 21't daA of July, 2026)

¶46

sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
21JUt2m
wU' 0';w.ryA3st. rcgGlrar
,rEr-J, rjvD3CABa0'

¶47

Mohd Imamuddin Siddiqui v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Imamuddin Siddiqui v. Karnataka Bank 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

Kovuri Nagesh Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited

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

pratap jadpod versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

Karur Vysya Bank versus Challa Raghupathi Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar