Dismissed

Seshadri Agro Industries v. Central Bank of India

DRT6 Apr 2026SA/436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Relief Tribunal dismissed the applicants' challenge to the Bank's possession proceedings. The Court held that the Bank duly served Demand and Possession notices via post, newspaper publication, and reliance on precedent established that affixing the notice was not required for borrowers who received them.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Seshadri Agro Industries versus Central Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.436/2024

¶5

l. M/s. Sheshadri Agro Industries, Rep. by its Partner, Kuna Rajaiah, S/o. K. Chinna Bashaiah, Aged about 64 years, Male, Business, #6- l2l, Khanpur, Nizamabad-503246.

¶6

Kuna Rajaiah, S/o. K. Chinna Bashaiah, Aged about 64 years, Male, Business

¶7

Kuna Ramesh, S/o. K. Chinna Bashaiah, Aged about 56 years, Male, Business

¶8

Kuna Srinivas, S/o. K. Chinna Bashaiah, Aged about 51 years, MaIe, Business

¶9

Kuna Vara Laxmi, W/o. K. Rajaiah, Aged about 57 years, Female, Housewife

¶10

Kuna Sujatha, W/o. K. Ramesh, Aged about 50 years, Female, Housewife All are R/o. #6-8-222, Namdevwada, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503246.

¶11

Applicants.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Central Bank of India, Laxmi Bai Chambers, Pu salagally, N2amabad - 503001.

¶14

Rep. by its Authorized Offrcer. ,. .

¶15

Respondent.

¶16

¶17

Counsel for tte Appticants ;. .' Counsel for tlrc Respondent .'-

SnT. Sridhar.

SnA.Y.S.S. Prasad.

O6APN2W

sA.No.436/2024

Reserued on : 29.O1.2026 Pronounced on : 06.04.2026 Uploaded to Website on^: 06.04.2026

¶23

.:ORDERi

¶24

The present application is filed by the^{Applicantsu/s.17 of the} Securitization and Reconstruction^{of FinancialAssetsand Enforcement} of Security Interest Act,^{2OO2, challenging the actionof the Respondent} Bank to take^{physical possessionof the applicationschedule property} pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner's^{Noticedl.O4.ll.2o24,issued} in Crl.M.P.No.444l2O24 on the^{file of the ld. ChiefJudicial Magistrate,} Nizamabad, including the^{PossessionNoticeand Demand Notice issued} by the Respondent Bank.

¶25

The averments made by^{the Applicantsin the application, in brief,are} that, the Applicant^{No. l-partnershipfirm, represented by its partners} i.e., Applicants No.2 to 6,^{has availed Cash Creditand TermLoan} facilities from the Respondent^{Bank and was regularlyrepayingthe loan} amounts for some time.^{However, subsequently,due to unfavourable} market conditions, Applicant^{No'1firm ran into liquidity crunch, forcing} the Applicants to^{delay in repaying the loan amount to the Respondent} Bank. The Respondent^{Bank,withoutserving Demand Noticeand} possession Notice on all the parties and without considering^the objections raised by the^{Applicantsin a positive manner,proceeded} u/ s. 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act and obtained Advocate commissioner} Warrant from the Ld.^{Chief Judicial Magistrate,Nizamabad,for taking} physical possession of the^{application schedule properties'The} Respondent Bank*. has^{neither affixed the Possession Notice on the} ..rr.ffi,n5gperties -t':.'^{nor published the said notice in two newspapers.} Tnp.iffi|"^uor1,*.ir.our..^{properties are agricultural lands and as such} .t; ,,.,-^06ap.-tn ii.j, i^",,,. r-. -itl t' .{ ,rr_,ll: i' ' ''rE'' -,..1r- - 'l-: ;:5-'"

¶26

SA.No.436/2024

¶27

the Respondent Bank is barred to proceed against the said properties in view of the exemption u/s.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the SA.

¶28

.). The Respondent Bank fiIed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application and contended that, the Applicants along with Sri Kuna Chinna Bahaiah, Sri Kuna Viswanath, Sri Kuna Venkatesh, Smt Kuna Sujatha @ Chinna Sujatha, Sri Kuna Venugopal and Sri Kuna Vamsi Krishna, who are also partners and guarantors, have availed the Cash Credit limit of Rs.3.00 crores from the lst Respondent Bank and committed default, which resulted in the classifrcation of the loan account as NPA on 29.O3.2024. The Respondent Bank has issued and served Demand Notice dt.O3.O4.2O24 and the Possession Notice dt.29.06.2o24 on the Applicants. The Demand Notice and the Possession Notice were published in English and Telugu newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank proceeded u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Cr1.M.P.No.444l2024 on the file of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad and obtained Advocate Commissioner Warrant for taking physical possession of the application schedule properties. The Respondent has duly followed the procedure and the SA may be dismissed.

¶29

Heard both sides. Perused the Written Arguments filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶31

(i) Whether the Applicants have made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the 1s Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act,agairisi the application schedule property? a

¶32

(ii) To what reliePs ii
, i ,i.
6 nPn M
,, *."'

¶33

SA.No.436/2024

¶34

Point No.lil:-

¶35

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule properties in favour of the Respondent Bank as security. The Applicants have admitted that, they could not repay the loan amount to ttre Respondent Bank, however, due to unfavourable market conditions. So, classification of the loan account of the Applicants as NPA by the Respondent Bank cannot be found fault with. The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with IA.No.294l /2025, wherein copies of Demand Notice dt.O3.O4.2O24, issued u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, along with postal receipts and publication of the said Demand Notice in 'Ielangana Today' English and 'Nava Telangana' Telugu newspapers dt.24.O4.2024 are filed. From the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure in serving the Demand Notice u/s.13(2) of the Act, 2OO2, on the Applicarts. The Respondent Bank, in its materia-l documents, has also filed a copy of the Possession Notice dt.29.06.2024, issued u/s. 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2, eJor,g with postal receipts, acknowledgements and returned covers ald copies of publication of the said Possession Notice in 'Telangana Today' English and 'Nava Telangana' Telugu newspapers dt.O5.O7.2O24. The said documents clearly establish that the Respondent Bank has duly served the Possession Notice on the Applicants and^published the said noticeⁱⁿ two newspapers, including one in vernacular language. As regards^the affixture of the Possession Notice on the secured assets is concerned,^Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank by^placing his reliance on a^judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra^Pradesh in the^{case of .Solithro} Tle Debt Recouery Tribunal-l", reported in AIR 2019 that, pasting of Possession Notice on ,secured asset cannot be claimed by the 00np|-2w

¶36

SA.No.436/2024

¶37

by such Possession can complain of non-aJlixture of possession Notice. I have gone through the said judgment of the Hon,ble High Court and the relevant portion is extracted below:-

¶38

"....This is cleor from the contents of the stotutory formot of the possession notice in Appendixlv to the Rules of 2002, Thereunder, the borrower in porticulor ond the public in general are coutioned not to deol with the property. ln such o situotion, it is not open to the borrower compony, having alreody received the possession notice dt.04.08.2072, to complain of foilure on the port of ING Vysyo Bonk Limited in ollixing the notice on the premises of the secured ossets, lf at oll, such o grievonce could be projected by o member of the^generol public who deolt with the secured ossets ,n ignoronce ol the possession notice. Such is not the cose presently."

¶39

In the aforesaid^judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has very clearly held that, the grievance as to the non-afflxture of Possession Notice can be raised by a member of general public, who had dealt with the secured asset ignorantly but not the borrower, who had already received the Possession Notice. In the instant case, as stated supra, the Respondent Bank has duly served the Possession Notice dt.29.O6.2O24 on the Applicants. In fact, the Applicants themselves filed a copy of the said Possession Notice along with the SA. Under such circumstance, I do not find any irregularity in the action of the Respondent Bank while issuing the Possession Notice dt.29.O6.2O24 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Since the Applicants failed to liquidate their liability despite issuance of Demand Notice and Possession Notice, the Respondent Bank has proceeded u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained Advocate Commissioner Warrant for taling physical possession of the application schedule pr-op-9{ties! I .do not find any merits in the present Securitization npptic4iOli q5r..d,:irnqis^liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is .t ".."f.tg"i.r"fip. e'fgrygts and in favour of the Respondent Bank. : :'-tJ 'f i ,^06ApnZW *;' .. ':" l' 't''tlgg{" .-ia.ii l ,.: ",";ji:::?/..- .

¶40

SA.No.436/2024

¶41

Potnt No.(til:-

¶42

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dctated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed bg her, arrected, signed and pronounced bg me in tle open ourt on thb tlle 06il, day of Apil, 2O26).

¶45

sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

o 6 npn zofi

Seshadri Agro Industries v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seshadri Agro Industries v. Central 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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mareedu Ajay

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Sandeboina Jayamma and Ors. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Siddi Vinayak Poly Fibers

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Jalaram Jute and Polymers

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Saikumar Palem