The Tribunal quashed a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act for alleged procedural defaults in replying to objections and publishing the notice, allowing the applicants to file a fresh petition.
The impugned possession notice dated 11.11.2024 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule properties is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2C.26
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.444/2c.24
Versus
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Bhainsa-11084 Nirmal Road branch, Bhainsa. ... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicantg : Sii R.Rajendra prasad. Counselfor : Sru K.lV.Shastry Re 1.2025 Pronou 1.2026 0 5 JAr,t 2028 1.2026
ORDER
- This Application is liled u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) cha,enging the action of the Respondent in issuing Possession Notice dt. 1r.11.2024 in respect of the schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor K'Mangesh and runs business in the name and style of Sri Jagadamba Pharmacy' Applicant No. l availed various credit facilities from Respondent Bank whereas Applicants No.2&3 stood as guarantors and the Applicants created mortgage against the schedule properties to secure the said roan facilities' The Respondent bank has illegally taken possession of pharma stocks on 2g'o3'2024 and the business of the Applicant No. 1 was closed. Thereafte,r the Respondent classified the loan account of the Applicant No.l as NPA on 3O.O7.2024 and issued demand notice dt.O2.O g.2O24 and, to the said demand notice, the Applicants submitted objections on 06.09.2024 but the Respondent bank failed to give reply u/s 13(3,4) of the SARFESI Act,2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 1r.11.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 andthe said notice was not published in two leading newspapers and arso not affixed on the secured assets and so, the said notice is not regal and valid. Hence the SA.
J. The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the loan accounts of the Applicants were classilied ent on 30.07.2024 by duly following the RBI ndent initiated proceedings under the and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of Act, 2OO2, ,no objections were submitted on ,lr,fi ,41rF
06.09.2024 as alleged by the Applicants. Thereafter, the Bank issued possession notice dt.1 1 .1I.2024 and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties as per Rule 8(1X2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Ru1es,20o2 and there are no deviations. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the sA.
Polnt ^l\Io.(i):-
During the course of arguments, Ld.counsel for the Appricants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
Rules made thereunder in issuing the possession notice and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.
documents' But the Respondent failed to file any materiar evidence to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the lst Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in issuing impugned possession notice dt. 1 r.1r.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act, I hord that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule properties under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.
Point No.(tilr
ffI"y:rf"',ry*';; WtrJ:,,::,tr'b;;[;""o, signed and pronounced bs me in the opett
A{q
ffi-'<br>0 5 Jltil 2o26 \ :'!l
sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OI.rICEd
LtrV4H&' Aeil. Rbgddrar N:I"}, tsYOERAEID.
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have established valid grounds for setting aside the possession notice dated 11.11.2024 issued by the respondent against the schedule properties.
To what relief should the court be governed in case the possession notice is declared null and void due to procedural lapses.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Sri Jagadamba pharmacy & Ors.
State Bank of India
Gummadì Gòpichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
