Dismissed

M/s. Dudipala Groups v. State Bank of India

DRT1 Jan 2026SA/478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging a possession notice, the Debts Recovery Tribunal I Hyderabad upheld the validity of the notice. The court held that the respondent bank duly followed the statutory procedure under the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Rules by serving notices personally, via registered post, affixing them on property, and publishing them in newspapers.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications disposed of; No order as to costs.

M/s. Dudipala Groups versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE lST DAYOFJANUARY, 2C.26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.478/2c.24

¶5

M/s Dudipala Groups Rep. by its Prop.Sri D. Veera Krishna S/o D. Babu, aged 37 years, Occ:business, D.No. I 5- 13_ 3T l / l, Bank Colony, Khammam-S 07 OO2.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer MSME Branch, Srinivasa plaza, Situated at D.No. 1O-2-4 e rc_2_S/A, Ground floor, Beside over Bridge, Mamillagudem, Khammam-SO7 0O I

¶9

.. . Respondent

¶10

Counsel for tLrc Applicant : Si D. Raghatrulu Counselfor Respondent : SiAlluiKishnamRaju

¶11

Reserued on : 19.11.202519.11.2025 Pronounced on :01.01.2026 Uploaded on :02.01.2026

¶12

: 19.11.202519.11.2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Application is Iiled u/s. 17 of the securit izationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2002) chalrenging the action of the Respondent in issuing as null and void.

¶15

n the Application in brief are as follows:

¶16

CC loan facility of Rs. 1.10 crores in the year 2O2L and created mortgage in respect of the schedule

¶17

properties as security for repal'rnent of the said loan. Due to Covid_19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and requested the Bank to regularize the ioan account by receiving overdue amount. without considering the request of the Applicant, the Respondent bank illegally declared the loan account ofthe Applicant as NpA. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule propert5r and also not published in two leading newspapers as prescribed under Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2oo2 and, so, said notice is not legal and vatid. The Applicant paid more than Rs.60 lakhs to the Respondent bank till date. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

The Respondent filed their Repry denying all the adverse alegations made in the sA and contended that the Appricant through its sole proprietor availed various credit facilities from the Respondent against the hypothecation of movabre property and also mortgage of immovable properties and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan accounts were classified as NpA on 29.02.2024 as per the RBI guidelines. The Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.29.02.2024 and the said notice was personally served on the Applicant. Thereafter the Bank issued possession notice dt.l6.lo.2024 and the same was served on the Applicant personally and the said notice was pubrished in Enadu and rhe Hindu daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly fonowed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 a..d, Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no deviations. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

"-^{I1'eardLd. counsel} for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent the material brought on record.

¶21

01JIN'02t .I Now the pointslthat arise for consideration are

¶22

i. uhether the Applicant has established. ang ualid ground s for setting aside the Possession .lvo tice d.t.16.1o.2o24 issued. bg the Respond.ent against the schedule propertg?

¶23

ii. To what relief ?

¶24

Point J\Io.(i):-

¶25

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

¶26

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed various credit facilities from the Respondent agpilsg the mortgage of schedule properties and rater committed default in repa5rment of 10an dues and so, the loan accounts were classified as NpA.

¶27

The specilic contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent failed to serye demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the impugned possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶28

But the Respondent contended that the Respondent has duly followed the procedure in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule properties and the same was published in two leading newspapers and there are no violations.

¶29

¶30

In order to prove their contentions, the Respondent filed materia_l f; f.6documents along with the Repry filed by them. As per the said materiar i/ #' doouments, 'it^'is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice fr:⁰ '!t.29.O7:pO24 u/s 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice ilI ::l .,:;l 3 -- ,., ,.'.1 '-' n" ,.',::? ,. '-t'

¶31

was served personally and through Regd.post on the Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the copy of the demand notice and copies of postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. when there is no response to the said demand notice from the Applicant, tJre Respondent issued possession notice dt.r6.ro.2o24 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal acknwoledgements and the said notice was personally served on the Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the oflice copy of the said notice frled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English da,y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper pubrication frred by the Respondent and the said notice was affxed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously compried with Rule 8(l)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the secured asset u/s 13(a) of the sARFAEST Act,2002 and so, the impugned possession notice dt. 16.1O.2O24 is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Potnt No.(fi)r

¶33

10' In the result, sA 4zg/24 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dctated to t^e p.S, transcribed. bg her, conected., signed. and pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the lst dag of January, 2026) ,

¶36

sd/-
01JIN (c. coPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFI.ICER
iTRUE/COPY,
Lt/,91.#v
at.dslii

M/s. Dudipala Groups v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Dudipala Groups 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

Canara Bank versus Chandra Powerloom Industry

Canara Bank versus Palakurthi Nagaraju

Mr.Surya Arun Kumar versus Home First Finance India Pvt. Ltd.

Ananthoju Venkatesh versus Rbl Bank Limited