Dismissed

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors v. Punjab National Bank

DRT27 Jan 2026SA/485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 13(7) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank duly followed prescribed procedures, including replying to objections and publishing/affixing the possession notice, thereby lacking merits for the revision.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 13(7) of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL * 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2C.26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.4a5/2c24

¶5

M/s Sree Krishna Tractors R9p UV its partners Mrs.Kaza Madhuri, W/o K.Venkta Satish, aged 49 years, Occ:business, R/o D.No.g- e- rc t 1 V+ 1 O, Vengal Rao Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad-S00 038.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Tersus

¶8

Punjab National Bank Rep. by its Authorized Officer Circle SASTRA Secunderabad Situated at 1O3, B-2-24a-A, Maharshi House, Rod No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-SOO 034.

¶9

.. . Respondent

¶10

Counsel for tlrc Applicant : Si^y.Krsihna Mohan Rao Counselfor Respondent : M/s M.V.Kini

¶11

Reserued on : 19.12.2025 Pronounced on :27.01.2026 Uploaded on :28.01.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Application is fired uls.r7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) of the Respondent Bank in issuing Possession dt. respect of tJ e schedule properties and to the sailt void. 2 7 ;ltl

¶14

The averments as follows:

¶15

The Applicant availed CC loan to a tune of Rs. 1,OS,00,000/- and Bank Guarantee to a tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - in the year 2021 from ttre Respondent for development of business by creating mortgage against the schedule properties. Due to non-receipt of pa5rments and linancial difficulties, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Respondent illegally declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA. In response to the demand notice dt.03. O9.2O24, the Applicant raised objections vide notice dt.19.o9.2o24 but the Respondent failed to follow Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 in issuing reply to said objections raised by the Applicant. The Bank failed to serve possession notice dt.25.l 1.2024 to the Applicant and the impugned possession notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule properties and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶16

The Respondent filed counter and adopted the same as Reply in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule properties and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classilied as NPA by the Respondent on 29.Og.2O24. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and the bank issued reply to the objections sent by the Applicant in response to the demand notice dt.o3.og.2024. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.1 1.2024 by duly following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, Rules made thereunder and there are no deviations. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard t and [d. Counsel for the Respondent and record.

¶18

¶19

tion are

¶20

tuhether the Applicant has established any ualid. grounds for setting aside the Possession lvo tice dt.2s.1 1.2024 issued bg the Respond.ent against the sclLedule properties?

¶21

ii. To uhat relief?

¶22

Point I\Io.(if:-

¶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

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed roan facilities from the Respondent and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.03.09.2024 and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice and also sent reply/objections in response to the said demand notice.

¶25

The specific contention of the Appricant is that without giving reply to the objections submitted by the Applicant in response to the demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.1 L.2024 without fo[owing the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶26

But the Respondent contended that the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Appricant by duly following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶27

the Respondent filed material liled by them. As per the said material

¶28

said notice. In response to the said demand notice, the Applicant submitted objections/reply vide notice dt. 19.og.2024 and the Respondent bank given repry to the said objections vide their retter dt.27.og.2024 and, sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track report filed by the Bank and thereby the Bank dury complied with section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.1 1.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Speed post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent' The Applicant also fired copy of the said possession notice along with the SA filed by them. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper pubrication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Bank' Thus the Respondent Bank has scrupulousry fo,owed Rule 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice dt'25.r r.2o24 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶29

Potnt No.(ti)r

¶30

t2. In the result, SA 485124 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.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concemed.

¶32

ib3d- bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open of January, 2O26)

¶33

2 I^{.'t,: lW *} sd/Y (c. coPr CHANDI M PRESIDIITTG OFilCER Isst, 4

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors v. Punjab National 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

Paka Vasantha versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Shushma Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry

D Ramesh versus Union Bank of India

Idbi Bank Limited versus Shri. Rama Rao Battu

Canara Bank versus Mr. Banavath Tharun