Dismissed

Sai Roshini Dendukuri v. State Bank of India

DRT1 Jun 2026SA/455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank's possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The court found the bank strictly followed statutory procedures, including sending a demand notice and publishing the possession notice, deeming the notice legal and binding.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE lsr DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.455 ol2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ms. Sai Roshini Dendukuri, D/o Sri Suresh Rao, aged 27 years, Occ: Private employee,^plot no.63, Sai Maruthi nagar, Boduppal, Medipalli - 92.

¶7

Smt Kavitha Dendukuri, w/o Sri Suresh Rao, aged 53 years, occ: housewife,^plot no.63, Sai Maruthi nagar, Boduppal, Medipalli - 92.

¶8

Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-Il (SARB-II), H. No, 1-8-563/1, RTC'X" roads, Opp Sandhya Theatre, 1st floor, chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶11

Represented by its authorised officer

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant Shri M. Sai Kiran Counsel for Respondent Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar Orders reserved .05.2026 Pronounced on Uploaded in o0 r rutt'rttrfi Urn-d

¶15

(SA.No.a5sl2024)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The applicants filed securitisation^{Application under section17 of the} securitisation and^{Reconstructionof FinancialAssets and Enforcement} of security Interest^{Act, 2002 challengingthe Possessionnoticedated} 18.L0.2024 issued by the^{respondentbank in respect of schedule} property.

¶18

The averments made^{in the application in brief are as follows:}

¶19

The applicant no.1 is borrower and applicant^{no.2 is the co-borrower} and they availed Education^loan from^{the respondent bank to a tune} of Rs.16.00 lakhs and the schedule^{property was mortgaged in favour} of the respondent towards security for the^said loan,^{Due to covid-} 19, the applicants could not^pay some^{instalments,so the loan amount} was classified as NPA by the respondent and the^{respondent bank} issued demand notice dated 05,06.2024 Yto^{the applicants. Thereafter} the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated^{18.10.2024.The} said notice is illegal and arbitrary.^{Hence the SA.}

¶20

3, The respondent bank filed reply statement^{contendingthat the} applicants availed loan from the respondent^{bank by creating} mortgage of schedule^property but^{later committed default and the} the loun u..ornt was classified as NPA u..ornt,m[N.so the respondent bank issued demand * ",,{kior.S i[g"t"d^{65.g61.2q4ryto gf applicants. But the applicantsdid not}

¶21

(SA.No.ass12024)

¶22

complythesaidnotice.Thereaftertherespondentbankissued Possessionnoticedated2O.OB.2O24undersectionl3(4)ofthe SARFAESI Act and^{the said notice was affixed on the schedule property} which was^{publishedin "Business Standardand Mana Telangana" daily} newspapers. so^{the respondentbank has followed the procedurelaid} down under SARFAESI^{Act and securityInterest (Enforcement)rules} made thereunder^{in issuing statutory notices to the applicants. In fact} the respondent^{bank issued Rule 8(6) sale notice, fixing the auction} on 05,06.2025^{and challengingthe Sale notice, the applicantsfiled} anotherSA.No.23312025beforethisTribunalandthesameispending' Hence the SA^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶23

Heard the arguments^{of both Counsels.}

¶24

Now the^{point for considerationis}

¶25

i) Whether the appticants^{have established any groundfor} challengingthePossessionNoticedated20.0s.2024issuedbythe respondent bank in^{respect of schedule property ?}

¶26

ii) To What RelieP

¶27

Point no.i)

¶28

During the .esuf.9-e^{of arguments,the Ld counsel for applicantsand} ,".0"rrffi$-E$#d^{their respective versionsas stated supra'} nerffio,nfl/''f^. oi s$rfr $ ."nHt ;*;*lV^the f^r^{act that the applicants availed} d "orlf$::^{$"1 dlbh6."rp[no"ntbank and thereafter committed} l. 3.,

¶29

(SA.No.as5l2024)

¶30

default and^{hence the respondent bank classifiedthe loan accountas} NPA and issued^{demand notice and possessionnotice to the applicants'}

¶31

The contention^{of the applicants is that the respondent bank has} issued the^{impugned demandnotice and Possessionnoticeto the} applicants^{withoutfollowing the SARFAESIAct and Rules made} thereunder^{and so the impugnedpossessionnotice is not legal and} valid.

¶32

The contention^{of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously} followed the^{procedure laid down in sARFAESI Act and Rulesmade} thereunder^{in issuingthe demand notice and Possessionnotice to the} Applicants^{and so the impugnedpossessionnotice is bindingon the} applicants.

¶33

The respondent^{bank in order to establish that it has followed the} procedure laid^{down in the SARFAESIAct and Rulesmade thereunder} in issuing the^{statutory notices, has enclosed the material documents} along^{with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that after} classifying^{the loan accountas NPA on 01.01 '2024, the respondent} bank issued^{demand notice dated 05.06.2024 under section 13(2) of} the SARFAEI^{Act to the applicants.The said notice was sent through} Regi anditwasreceivedbytheapplicantsasevidencedby ents. Thereafter,^{the respondent bank issued} plicants and the^{same was also receivedby} by the^{postal acknowledgements'The} .r[,[.{rtt3 4

¶34

k*,",,.4# Slm,3f

¶35

(SA.No.455/2024)

¶36

said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs. The said possession notice is also published in the newspapers as evidenced by the paper publications filed by the respondent bank. Thus, it is clear that the respondent bank followed the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice to the applicants.

¶37

So considering all the circumstances, I hold that the impugned possession notice issued by the respondent bank is perfectly legal and binding on the applicants. So I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the impugned Possession notice. So there are no merits in the SA and hence SA is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.

¶38

Point no.ii)

¶39

In the result, 5A.455/2024 is dismissed.

¶40

t2. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the

¶43

j or.rurrzn
Ia?
,)- ", \l

¶44

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER f,h FBaano.

Sai Roshini Dendukuri v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Roshini Dendukuri 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

Sri Venkateswara Rice Traders and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Mohammed Nizam uddin versus Protium Finance Limited

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Pottipati Sivareddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Musham Ravi Kumar

Mr Sanjay Sambrani versus Union Bank of India