Dismissed

Veerabadhra Traders v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT13 Jul 2026SA/468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's possession proceedings. The court rejected the contention that notices were not properly issued, finding the respondent had validly followed the requisite statutory and rule-based procedures, including notice publication and service.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as it had no merits; the respondent is at liberty to proceed with physical possession.

Veerabadhra Traders versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 3TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.468/2025

¶5

I . Veerabhadra Traders Rep. by Gaddam Pradeep Yadav, D.No. 1-3-1027/ 1, Backside Marriot^Hotel, Kavadiguda, Circle 15, Hyderabad-SOO^O80

¶6

Gaddam Pradeep Yadav S/o P.Papaiah Yadav Gaddam, Aged 36 years, R/o Plot No.34, GL Yadav Nagar, Saibaba colony, Setarampuram, Tirumalagiri, Opp. St. Peters High School, Hyderabad-Soo 011.

¶7

Smt.Bollamaina Vidya, W/o Sri Gaddam Pradeep Yadav, R/o Plot No.34, GL Yadav Nagar, Saibaba colony, Setarampuram, Tirumalagiri, Opp. St.Peters High School, Hyderabad-SOO 011.

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Office at 40, Basant Lok, Santacruz, Mumbai-4o0 O98. '\ Branch Office at Hyderabad-5O0 082. ,t :i* tl Jul.fl!?t ^-J Bhattarcharjee Roj Reserued on Pronounced on 13.07.2026 Uploaded on 13.07.2026

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.X Addl.CJM, Sec.bad in Cr1.M.P.No.2448125 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶13

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

¶14

The Applicants availed Term loan of Rs.1,3l,l6,Og4l- from the Respondent in the year 2024 and the Applicants have been paying instalments regularly. However, due to financial crunch, the Applicants ran into liquidity crunch and could not make some payments. without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent straightway proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.X Addl.cJM, Sec.bad 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 u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2. The Respondent illegally declared the loan account of the Applicants as NPA. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA a ntended that Respondent sanctioned loan to the Applicants default committed by the Applicant, the Respo lassi the unt of the Applicants as NPA as per the I. Th ,^{the Respondentissued} demand 1O.Q!PW[ ffiF 13p[iof the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said n6,ti-i$: was sent to the.^44plltants and also published in two daily newspa i .Respondent issued possession notice ,"'./":/' rc

¶16

dt.27.O6.2O25 and the said notice was published in two^daily newspapers and the same was also affixed on the schedule^property. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESI Act,} 2OO2 for taking physical^possession of the^{schedule property through} advocate commissioner pursuant to^{the orders of Ld.X Addl.CJM,} Sec.bad and challenging the said^{proceedings,the Applicants filed the} present SA. Accordingly, Respondent^{prayed to dismissthe SA.}

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants^{and Ld.Counselfor the} Respondent. Perused the material^{brought on record.}

¶18

Now the points that arise^{for considerationare}

¶19

whether the Applicants^{haue establishedanA ualid grounds} for challenging the^{proceedingsinitiated by the Respondent} for^taking physical possession of tlrc sclrcdule^{propertg u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI} Act, 2O02 through aduocate^{commissioner?}

¶20

ii. To what relief ?

¶21

Polnt.t\Io.(if :-

¶22

During the course^{of arguments, Ld. Counselfor the Applicants and Ld.} Counsel for the Respondent^{reiterated their respectiveversionsas stated} supra.

¶23

are that the Applicants^{availedloan from} rhe und i sp u ted le*;..f lnffiss the Re spondenf ati6'S*rta'ii& against the schedule ProPertY^and thereafter, ying the loan dues and^SO, the 14 of the SARFAESI Act,^2OO2for

¶24

Respo taking p ule property.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 2OO2, straightaw?y, 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 initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶26

Per contra, Respondent contended that admittedly, the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of the schedule property. After availing the loan, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the loan agreement and so, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶27

1O. To substantiate their contention, the Respondent liled material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicants as NpA, Respondent issued demand notice dt.1o.02.2o2s u/s 13(21 of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. re is valid service of demand notice on the Applican failed to comply with the said demand $Semffits

¶28

dh"=;;ffi",;' el) ion notice dt.27.06.2025 u/s 13(a)

¶29

t', 2OO2 arid the said ssion notice was sent to the Applicants

¶30

th-,++.g$.p1"dU* m..+i}, the copies of postal track reports liled ssion notice was published in Telugu

¶31

'i,r.llE-Sf{

¶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 schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondnet. Thus the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice dt.27.06.2025 u/s 13(a) of the Act.

¶33

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice uls 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 Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.X Addl.CJM, Sec.bad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.2448l25 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.X Addl.CJM, Sec.bad after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicants, so, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid. Challenging the said proceedings, the Applicants filed the present SA and this Tribunal granted interim conditional order directing the Applicants to deposit Rs.2O lakhs in two instalments. However, during the pendency of the SA and even before the time for payment of the 2"d instalment, the Respondent proceeded further and taken physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner on 20.1L.2025 and challe-l"ging{t5,Hid proceedings, the Applicants preferred writ petit ion arnrgffffig3lp,W ourt for the State of Telangana and as per the ordq H6 High Court, the Respondent had handed ou.. tfl.ttrRos the asset along with key to the Appticant" ..'& G,n.1 .hdfl[thlil[pph4 ts also liled a memo.

¶34

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed for taking physical possession of the schedule property by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶35

Point No.(ii):-

¶36

In the result, S.A468125 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶37

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

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 13tt, dag of Julg, 2026)

¶40

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

1 I JUt a20

Veerabadhra Traders v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerabadhra Traders v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

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

M Venkataramana versus Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Thirupathi Kurva

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Sanabill Enterprises

Mr Ravikanti Ashok versus Shriram Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Maha Laxmi Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Kanaka Maha Laxmi Powerlooms Industry