Dismissed

Perala Srinivas Rao v. Hdfc Bank

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/484/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No. 484 of 2024, the DRT-I at Hyderabad dismissed the applicant husband and wife's application challenging an advocate commissioner's notice to vacate property held as security. The Tribunal held the bank followed the SARFAESI Act, served notices via publication as required, and appointed the commissioner validly to take possession. No grounds for interference were found.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No. 484/2024 was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Perala Srinivas Rao versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.484 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr. Perala Srinivasa Rao,

¶6

s/o Perala Bheem Rao, aged about 49 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.2-1O-765, SBI colony, Waddepally X Road, Opp forest office, Warangal - 506 370. TS.

¶7

Mrs. Perala Sri Vidya,

¶8

w/o Perala Srinivasa Rao, aged about 43 years, occ: self employed female, R/o H.No. 2-t0-765, SBI colony, Waddepally X Road, Opp forest office, Warangal - 506 370. TS.

¶9

Applica nts

¶10

Ve rsus

¶11

HDFC Bank Limited, University Road branch, Kandakatla Gateway, University road, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 001. Represented by its authorised officer

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant

¶15

Shri V. Sethu Madhava Rao

¶16

Sri M. Srinivas Reddy

05.05.2026

30.06.2026

30.06.2026

(SA.No.484l2024)

ORDER

The applicants filed Securitisation Application^{under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets and Enforcement} of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the notice dated 26.11.2024 issued by^{the Advocate commissionerfor} taking physical^possession of the schedule^{property as per ordersin} Crl.MP.No.392l2O24^passed by the^{Hon'ble Seniorcivil JudgeCum} Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at^{Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri} district.

¶23

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

¶24

The Applicants no.1 & 2 are husband and wife who availed Retail Agri Cash credit limit of Rs.1.00 Crore, farm development loan limit^of Rs.2.50 crores and also availed CC limit loan of Rs.3.00 Crores vide sanction letter dated 2L.09.2022. Thereafter, the applicants could not repay the loan amount and the account was classified as NPA on 24.10.2023. The respondent bank initiated^proceedings and issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also possession notice under section 13( ) of SARFAESI Act. But the demand notice and possession notices were not served on applicants

¶25

re neither affixed on the schedule property nor published i.qp" newspapers as stipulated under section B(1) and B(2) of Security I (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The respondent JUN bank 'rl2Finitiatdd proceedings before Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan

¶26

(SA.No.484/2024)

¶27

Magistrate by filing Crl.MP.No.392/2024 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice for vacating the schedule property and same is not valid. Hence the SA.

¶28

The respondent bank filed reply statement contending that the applicants availed three credit facilities i.e., (1) Retail Agri Cash Credit of Rs.1.00 crore, (2) farm development of Rs.2.50 crores (3) KCG Allied indirect credit facility of Rs.3.00 crores and executed necessary documents and created mortgage in respect of schedule property. As the applicants failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 24.10.2023 and thereafter issued demand notice dated 05.01.2024 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the said notice was unserved on the applicants. So the Demand notice was published in two leading newspapers on 08.02.2024. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated L0.07.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was published in "Mana Telangana and Financial Times" daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent bank initiated proceedings Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.MP.392/2024 on file Hon'ble SEnior Civil Judge cum Addl Chief Metropolitan ukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri district and got appointed .f.:y missioner for taking physical possession. The said 3 0 auuamte issioner issued notice to the applicants which is binding$h , Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. ,,o4;'

¶29

lSA.No.asa/2o2al

¶30

Heard the arguments of both Counsels.

¶31

Now the point for consideration is

¶32

i) Whether the applicants have established any ground for challenging the notice dated 26.11.2024 in Crl.MP.No.392/2024 for vacating the schedule property?

¶33

ti) To What RelieQ

¶34

Point no.i)

¶35

During the course of arguments, the Ld counsel for applicants and respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra. There is no dispute regarding the fact that applicants availed loan facilities from the respondent bank and created mortgage of schedule property and thereafter the applicants committed default and the loan account was classified as NPA by the respondent bank.

¶36

The contention of the applicants is that the respondent bank has not served demand notice and possession notice on the applicants and initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the property through Advocate commissioner by filing necessary application before

¶37

rned Hon'Ole Senior Civil^judge Cum Additional Chief agistrate at Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri district, dated 26.11.2024 to the applicants which is not .* 3 o,dlfld"TB m:":tiding on the appricants.

(SA. No.484/2024)

The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the demand notice and Possession notice to the Applicant and so the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 26.LL.2024 is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.

¶42

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made 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 account as NPA on 24.10.2023, the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants. The said notice was sent through Registered post but however it was returned unserved. So the respondent bank published the demand notice in Telugu and English Newspapers and so, there is valid service of demand notice on the applicants. As there was no response to the said demand notice, the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 10.07.2024 lo the applicants and the said possession notice was published in the newspapers^.'Mana Telangana and Fina-hcial Times". Thus there is valid service of ce on the applicants.

¶43

' 1^,o.l r, U0^{ffi6r16pinStd$} sY' possession notice, the respondent bank is at liberty A ,^{toapproa-ch tht' concerned Chief JudicialMagistrateseeking}

¶44

(SA. No.484/2024)

¶45

of the schedule^{property.Accordingly the Respondentfiled} Crl.MP.392/2024 on the file of^{Hon'bleSenior Civil JudgeCum} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Kukatpally,Medchal} Malkajgiri district. The^{Ld Chief ludicial Magistrate after considering} the record, was^pleased to^{appoint Advocate commissioner for taking} physical possession of the schedule^{property. Admittedly,the said} Advocate Commissioner issued^{impugnedvacate noticedated} 26.11.2024 to the Applicants to^{vacate the schedule property within} 15 days from the date of^{notice. So the said notice issuedby the} Advocate Commissioner is^{perfectly legal, valid and binding on the} applicants. So, I see^{no groundwarranting interference of this Tribunal} with the notice issued by^{the Advocate commissioner for taking} physical possession of the schedule^{property.Sothereare no merits} in the SA and hence SA^{is liable to be dismissed' This point is} answered accordinglY.

¶46

Point no.ii)

¶47

In the result, 5A.48412024^{is dismissed.}

¶48

The Interlocutory^{Applications, pending if any, shall standdisposedof'} to costs.

¶49

copy of this order to the^{parties concerned.}

¶50

her, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open courton this the}

¶51

30th day of lune, 2026) , , ,1gH^fl7F '.'r: .it .*o-Y, ' @" W

¶52

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Perala Srinivas Rao v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perala Srinivas Rao v. Hdfc 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry