Dismissed

Vishal kumar Agarwal v. Axis Bank

DRT26 Feb 2026SA/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application under Section 17 of the SAREFAESI Act, the tribunal dismissed the applicants' challenge to the bank taking possession of secured property. The court held that documentary evidence proved proper service of demand and possession notices, defeating claims of procedural violation under Sections 13(2) and 13(4).

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 is dismissed; the bank's measures to take physical possession under Section 14 are allowed; interlocutory applications stand closed.

Vishal kumar Agarwal versus Axis Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026}

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2024}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr. Vishal Kumar^Agarwal S/o Mr. Vishnu^KumarAgarwal Aged about⁴⁴ Years,^Occ:Business H. No. 8-2-293/83/1/95A,^{Flat No.4} 4th Floor, MLA^{ColonY, Street No'11} Beside MPM^{Office, Banjara Hills} Hyderabad.

¶7

Also at: H. No. 5-9-48/2,^{Trinetra Jewellers} Main Road,^Basheerbagh Hyderabad.

¶8

Swathi Agarwal W/o Vishal^{Kumar Agarwal}

¶9

Age: Maior,^{Occ: Household} H-. No' 8-2-293/83/1/95A,^{Flat No'4} 4th Floor,^{MLA ColonY,StreetNo'71} Beside MPM^{Office,Baniara Hills} HYderabad.

¶10

Mr. Vikas^{Kumar Agarwal} Aged S/o Mr. about Vishnu⁴⁷ Years,^{Kumar Occ: Agarwal Business} . H-. No. 8-2-293/83/1/95A,^{Flat No'4} 4th Floor, MLA^{ColonY, Street No'11} Beside MPM^{Office,Banjara Hills}

¶11

HYderabad.

¶12

Mrs. Sangeetha^Agarwal W/o Vikas^{Kumar Agarwal} /y., Age: Major,^{Occ: Househo'O} (/Y"rO

¶13

SA No.47/2024

¶14

¶15

H.. No. 8-2-293/83/1/954, Ftat No.4 4th Floor, MLA Cotony, Street No.11 Beside MPM Office, Banjara Hitts Hyderabad.

¶16

. . . . .Applicants.

¶17

And

¶18

Axis Bank D. No.5-2-183/184 3'd Floor Opp: Modi Square Ra n igu nj, Hydera bad -500003 Rep by its Authorised Officer. .....Respondent.

¶19

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. P. Pavan Raghav. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Lotus Law Associates..

¶20

:ORDER:-

¶21

The Applicants filed the present Securitization Application u/s. 17 0f the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 assailing the action of respondent bank to take the physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to Advocate Commissioner

¶22

Warrant dated 17.01.2024 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶23

The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in the SA, in brief, are;

¶24

Respondent bank sanctioned housing loan of Rs.1,35,00,000/_ in 2016, two LAp loans of Rs.85,00,000 /_ and Rs.4l,2t,77S/_ in 2018 and another LAp loan of Rs.23,21,9 56/- in 2020 during Covid time for development of applicants business. The above loans were secured by way of mortgage of OA schedule

¶25

5A No.47/2024

¶26

property. During the Covid period, applicants were unable to pay the loan instalments. Respondent bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings without considering regularisation of accounts by receiving overdue instalments. The loans were classified as NPA contrary to RBI guidelines. The respondent issued^possession notice without first issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The^possession notice was not served on the applicants, affixed on the secured asse5 and^published in two leading newspapers amounting to violation of^procedure laid down under Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Applicants are in deep troubles and are ready to^pay the dues if some breathing time^is granted. Applicants deposited substantial amounts to the credit of the loan accounts till date. However, respondent's^coercive steps to take physical^possession of the^property are^ill- intended and against the law and^principles of natural^justice' Hence, the present Securitisation Application.

¶27

Respondent bank filed reply statement. The^{avermentsof the} reply statement in brief, are:

¶28

There is no violation of^provisions of Sections^{13(2) and 13(4)} and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act and the Security} Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in serving^{the demand} notice and^possession notice as also^{affixtureand publicationof} possession notice. Photocopies of demand notice^dated 27.12.2022,^possession notice dated^{23.03.2023,postal} acknowledgement cards,^{publication of possession notice in} Findncial Express and Mana^{Telangana and affixture of} possession notice on the secured asset are^{placed at pages 1 to} 15 of reply statement. In^{view of there being{o violation of} ffi*u

¶29

sA No.47/2024

¶30

¶31

the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2002, the SA is devoid of any merit and accordingly, respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶32

In spite of conditional order, learned counsel for the applicant failed to advance arguments. Accordingly, applicants' right of advancing arguments was forfeited vide docket order dated 09.02.2026. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. Perused the written arguments filed by the respondent bank and the material placed on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the applicants have failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or illegality in the SARFAESI measures initiated by the bank. On the contrary, the respondent bank has filed sufficient material papers to prove adherence of the procedure under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The allegations as to noncompliance of the provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) in serving the demand notice and possession notice are proved to be incorrect in view of the material papers placed on record by the respondent bank. Therefore, the allegations of the applicants on this count are baseless and contrary to the evidence placed on record by the respondent bank. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA as it lacks merit.

¶34

Now the points that arise for determination

¶35

sA No.47/2024

¶36

i) Whether the Applicants have made out any valid ground for quashing the measures initiated by the respondent u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act against the SA schedule property?

¶37

i, To what relieJ?

¶38

Point No. (i):

¶39

Admittedly, applicants committed default in repayment of^loans reportedly during Covid Pandemic. Though defendants claim to haye taken up the matter of regularisation and reschedulement, they did not choose to^place any correspondence exchanged with the respondent bank except making some^bald statements. As regards the allegation of non-compliance^of Sections t3(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in^serving demand notice and^possession notice, the^{respondentbank} placed material papers at pages 1 to B annexed to the reply statement evidencing acknowledgement by the applicants.^The Respondent also^placed material^papers vide^pages 9 to¹⁰ annexed to reply statement evidencing affixture^{of possession} notice on the secured asset and^publication of^{possession notice} in two newspapers. Applicants have not disputed^these documents. Hence, the allegations as to^{violation of procedure} as laid down in Sections 13(2) and^{13(4) of the SARFAESI Act} and Rules B (1) and B(2) of the Security^{Interest (Enforcement)} Rules, 2002 in serving demand notice^{and possessionnotice are} baseless. Accordingly, the applicants^{failed to make out any} valid ground to interdict the securitisation^{proceedings of the} respondent bank to take the^{physical possession of the secured} asset under section¹⁴ of the^{SARFAECIAct. Thereforq:, the SA} is devoid of any merit and is^liable to^{be dismisse} OW

¶40

5A No.47/2024

¶41

Point No.(ii):

¶42

B. In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶43

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Website.

¶45

tDi.ctuted ttt the .\tpnt), signul an,l pronounccd by me in the open court on this the )6"' doy L{ Fehruor}). )86). frw*

¶46

(RA+,GSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Vishal kumar Agarwal v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal kumar Agarwal v. Axis Bank

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)