Dismissed

M/s Jay Ess Associate v. State Bank of India

DRT8 Jul 2026SA/465/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging possession proceedings under Section 14 was filed. Tribunal found that the Respondent duly served notices as per Act and Rules. Possession was taken via court-appointed advocate commissioner. Application dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there are no merits in challenging the possession proceedings.

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.465,/2024

¶5

M/s Jay Ess Associates Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Vasarla Venkat, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .5-4-1304 I 3, Sharada nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-sOO 070.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Stressed Asses Recovery branch, Chikkadapaliy, H.No. 1 -8-563, 1"t floor, Opp.Sandhya Theatre, RTC X Roads, Chikkadapaly, Hyderabad-sO0 020.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for tLrc Applicant : Sn D. Raghauulu Counsel for Respondent : Sri Alluri Kishnam Raju

¶11

Reserued on : 06.07.2026 Pronounced on :08.07.2026 Uploaded on :09.07.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for ys1 ssion of the schedule property through Advocate ,11'COmmi t to the orders of Ld.1 Addl.CJM, R.R. District at ttY*mf.rffl M f l$.ooz 124 and to declare the same as ilegat and

¶14

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

¶15

Applicant availed Cash Credit loan of Rs.95 lakhs from the Respondent in the year 2021 for development of business and created mortgage against the schedule property in security to the said loan. However, due to financial crunch and lock down, the business of Applicant went into loss and so, could not pay some instalments, So, the Respondent illegally declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA and issued possession notice dt.06.09.2023 and challenging the same, the Applicant filed SA 387/23 before the Honble DRT-II, Hyderabad and the bank withdrawn the said demand notice and possession notice and So, the said SA was dismissed as infructuous vide order dt.O7.Os.2024. Thereafter, without issuing fresh demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent straightway proceeded for taking physical possession of schedule property and so, the said proceedings are 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 ul r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. The Applicant is ready to regularize the loan account by paying the overdue amount. Hence the SA.

¶16

The Respondent filed their counter and adopted the same as Reply in the SA denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Respondent issued fresh demand notice dt.23.05.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post and the same was served on the Applicant:'.Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.02.08.2024 . and:'.the '^.::,i. haid notice was published in two daily - '.^:; ." t-;-''t,. newspatriers "n$;,h. I"tbfu"" affixed on the schedule property. Therea fi ter, the 'HbspoRespo nden fofotroceeded u/s 14 of the Act, 2OO2 and obtained^0.,fuJUL 46'" ,g Ld.lAddl.CJM, R.R. District in crr.Vr.$,ryg 667 124 f"fuqg*ffifitment of advocate commissioner for r"-r"Nw,iffiffi"o^rn' said advocate commissioner and

¶17

also taken physical possession vide panchnama dt.22.O1.2025 and also prepared inventory of the articles lying in the schedule property. Thereafter, the Bank also proceeded for conducting auction of the schedule property by issuing e Auction Sale Notice dt.01 .09.2025, however the said auction was not materialized. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

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

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

r. uthether the Applicant hos established ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsicol possession of tlle schedule propertA u/ s 14 of tle SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner pursuant to tlrc orders in Crl.M.P.No.667/ 24?

¶21

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶22

Point No.(i):-

¶23

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

¶24

facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from created mortgage against the schedule property and

¶25

co default in repaying the loan dues and so, the

¶26

#*."ro.t t initiatd under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for

¶27

' t.t8.,E pl{kt2&f ion of the schedule property.

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Bank initially^issued possession notice dt.O6.O9.2023 and challenging the same, the^Applicant filed SA 387 /23 on the file of DRT-ll, Hyderabad and^{the samewas} dismissed as withdrawn since the Bank^{had withdrawnthe impugned} demand notice and possession notice. Thereafter,^{the Respondentwithout} serving fresh demand notice and^{possessionnotice and without following} Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Rules, 2002, straightaway, 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.

¶29

g. Per contra, Respondent contended that Applicant^{availedloan from the} Respondent against the mortgage of schedule^{property. After availing the} loan, the Applicant admittedly committed^{defaultin repaying the loan dues} and so, the loan account was classified as^{NPA as per the guidelines ofRBI} and the Respondent issued demand notice and^{possessionnotice to the} Applicant by duly following the^procedure contemplated under^the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder^{and also} took physicai possession of the schedule^property through^advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2by foilowing due process} of law.

¶30

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent^{filedmaterial documents} along with the counter hled by them. As^per the^{said documents,it is clear} that the Respondent issued fresh demand^{noticedt.23.05.2024 u/s 13(2)} of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said^{noticewas served onthe} Applicant ggh Regd.Post as evidenced by the^postal :mentS\tea by the Respondent.. When the Applicant^{failed to}

¶31

,g-Jmpty ryith^ttr. d notice, Respondent issued^{possession notice} Llt )^{of the Act, 2OO2 and the said possession notice} t through Regd.post as evidenced by the^postal Bank. The said notice was published in Telugu

¶32

and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the scheduie property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 it issuing possession notice against the schedule property.

¶33

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, 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.1 Addl.CJM, R.R. District u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by hling Crl.M.P.No.667 124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of three schedule property. Ld.l Addl.CJM, R.R. District after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propertSr and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant and subsequently, the Bank also took physical possession of the schedule property by obtaining panchnama and by following due process of law. So, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid. Thereafter, the Bank also proceeded for conducting auction of the scheduie property by issuing sale notice but however, the said auction was not materialized.

¶34

t2. CONSI stances, I am of the opinion that the relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, jnterference of this Tribunal with the frgroun proceedings f'ff"t,.{!t ffie n ndent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s l4 e SARFAESI Act,2OO2 pursuant to the

¶35

orders in Crl.M.P.No.667 124. Accordingly, this^{pointis answeredin favour} of the Respondent and against the^Applicant.

¶36

Potnt No.(tl)t

¶37

In the result, SA 465124 is dismissed^{as there are no merits.}

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this^{orderto the partiesconcerned.}

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedbg me in the open} court on this the 8'h dag of July,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶41

sd/(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s Jay Ess Associate v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Jay Ess Associate 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Mohammed Younus

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sun Formulations

M S Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi Modern Rice Mills

Canara Bank versus M/S.Hanuman Powerlooms Industry

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Abha Foods