Dismissed

Sri Putcha Balaji Dev v. State Bank of India

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/440/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside possession measures initiated by the State Bank of India. The court found the bank strictly followed statutory procedures for demand and possession notices, rejecting the applicant's claims of non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Sri Putcha Balaji Dev versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 440 OF 2023

¶5

Sri. Putcha Balaji Dev, S/o Late. P. V. Purnachandra Rao, Gender: Male, Aged About 54 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No.2l-24/1, Flat No. G-2, Sai Karuna Apartments, Near Bus Stop, Dayanand Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 047

¶6

..........Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre 3rd Floor, Patny Circle, Secunderabad - 500 003

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. D. Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent : Mr. G. Prabhakar Sharma

¶11

-:re_s:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the^{RespondentBank} under the Act, including^possession notice dated 12.09,2023ⁱⁿ respect of the SA Schedule Property.

¶13

The averments of the application, briefly, are that^the Respondent Bank sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- in^the

ffi-,v

Page 2of6

SA No.440/2023

year 2009 to the Applicant's father, Late P. Purnachandra Rao. It is averred that after the demise of the borrower on 07.12.2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicant came to know of the loan liability only when the oFficials of the Respondent Bank visited the secured asset. The Applicant submits that he thereafter paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the loan account but, due to financial hardship caused by the pandemic and other unforeseen circumstances, could not continue regular repayments due to which account was classified as a NPA. The Applicant specifically alleges non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short) contending that no valid demand notice was served, the^possession notice dated 72.09.2023 was neither served nor affixed on the secured asset, and the same was not published in two leading newspapers, including one vernacular newspaper, as required under law. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to give credit to the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- while computing the outstanding dues reflected in the possession notlce. The Applicant also contends that the secured asset is worth more than Rs.18,00,000/-, whereas the outstanding amount mentioned in the impugned possession notlce is Rs.15,03,849/-, and expresses readiness to clear the overdue amount or settle the account under an OTS scheme if reasonable time is granted. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Applicant seeks to set aside the possession notice dated 72.09.2023 and the consequential measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that it ls admitted that the loan was originally availed by the Applicant's father, Late Sri P.V. Purnachandra Rao, who had obtained a Reverse 14ortgage Loan

¶19

Page 3 of5

¶20

sA No.440/2023

¶21

of Rs.10,08,000/- on 09.10.2009 by mortgaging the SA schedule property. It is averred that, after the demise of the borrower on 07.12.2020, the Applicant, being the legal heir, failed to discharge the outstanding liability, resulting in the loan account being classified as a NPA on 10.05.2023. The Respondent contends that a demand notice dated 16.05.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act and, upon failure to discharge the dues, a possession notice dated 12.O9.2023 under Section 13(4) of the Act was lssued, served upon the Applicant, affixed on the secured asset and published in two newspapers on 77.09.2023 in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002. It is further submitted that, as the Applicant neither cleared the outstanding dues nor handed over possession of the secured asset, the Respondent inltiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.M.P.No.539 of 2023 before the Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate/ lvledchal-Malkajgiri, pursuant to which an Advocate Commissioner issued a vacation notice dated 16.72.2023. The Respondent further contends that the Applicant challenged the possession notice by filing S.A. No.440 of 2023 and obtained an interim order subject to deposit of Rs.3,60,000/- in instalments, but having failed to comply with the said condition, the Respondent obtained extension of the Advocate Commissioner's warrant and took physical possession of the secured asset on 75.06.2024. It is further averred that thereafter the Respondent issued e-auction sale notices dated 31.08.2024 and 22.1,7.2024, but the auctions could not be concluded, and S.A. No.420 of 2024 filed by the Applicant challenging the sale notice was ultlmately dismissed as infructuous on 13.10.2025. Denying all allegations of non-service of statutory notices and non-compliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Respondent contends that all statutory requirements were duly complied with and that the Applicant hiq repeatedly

//Wr^1.\h U/v..<.'$

Page 4 of 6

SA No.^tt40l2023

approached the Tribunal only to delay the recovery proceedings. Accordingly, the Respondent prays for dismissal of the SA with costs.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel the respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶27

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Applicant reiterated the averments made in the SA and contended that the Respondent Bank failed to afford the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to clear the outstanding dues. The learned counsel further alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rutes 8(1) and 8(2) of Rules, 2002. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property as illegal, null and void.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank denied the averments of the Applicant and placed reliance upon the material papers annexed to the reply statement. It is submitted that the Applicants' account was classified as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines and that the Respondent Bank had strictly followed the due procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the S.A.

¶29

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶30

i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the possession notice dated 12.09.2023 in respect of the sA Schedute^property?

@.rrS

ii) To what relief?

Page 5 of 6

sA No.440/2023

Point No,(i):

Admittedly, Late Sri P. Purnachandra Rao, the father of the Applicant, had availed the housing loan by creating a mortgage over the SA schedule^property, and upon his demise, the Appllcant, being the legal heir, failed to discharge the outstanding liabilityⁱⁿ accordance with the terms of the loan. In view of the admitted default, the action of the Respondent Bank in^classifying the^loan account as a NPA and initiating measures under the^{provisions of the} SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be said to be illegal, arbltrary^or irregular, as contended by the Applicant.

¶37

The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with^reply statement as^proof of compliance of due^procedure of^{law. Pages 1 to} 5 of the material^paper filed^separately are^{the Photostat copies of} postal receipts and track report^proving service of demand^notice. Similarly, Pages 6 to 10 are the Photostat^copies of^{postal receiptof} Possession Notice dated 72.09.2023,^photographs as^{proof of} affixture on secured assets and^{publication of the samein English and} Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on^{17.O9.2023. In view of} sufficient^proofplace on record, I find no^{infractionof section13(2) &} 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the^{Rules, 2002.Asa} secured creditor the Respondent bank initiated the^SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶38

In view of the above observations, it is^concluded that^the Applicant has failed to establish any valid^{ground to interdictthe} measures initiated by the Respondent^{Bank under the provisions of} the Act against the SA schedule^{property. Accordingly, the SA is liable} to be dismrssed. 1ffiAt\

1ffiAt\

Page 6 of 5

SA No.440/2023

Point No.(ii):

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

L2. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

No order as to costs.

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶47

(Typed..to my dictotion by the Steno., corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in e open court on this ffi.trt-t SHWAR KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Putcha Balaji Dev v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Putcha Balaji Dev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s. Kalyani Restaurant and Bar

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sameer Motors

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Kalamkari Hand Drawn Sarees.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Medha Coir Industries

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Masineni Bhargav

Standard Chartered Bank versus Sunila Devi Taparia and Another