Dismissed

Abhinav Didigi v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT30 Jan 2026SA/505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In securitisation application No. 505 of 2024, applicants challenging takeover of property possession by Bank of Maharashtra under SARFAESI Act were dismissed. The court held the application devoid of merits as physical possession was already taken and inter-se disputes do not survive adjudication here.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; order to close any pending interlocutory applications.

Abhinav Didigi versus Bank of Maharashtra — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. 505 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Abhinav Didgi S/o D. Rama Chandra Aged about 30 years Aged about 30 years Occ: Business

¶7

H. No. 1-B-15/18 Ranigunj, Minister Road Secunderabad-500003.

¶8

Smt. lahnavi Didgi W/o D. Rama Chandra Aged about 52 years Aged about 30 years Occ: Business H. No. 1-8-15/ 18 Ra n igunj, M in ister Road Secunderabad-500003.

¶9

.....Applicants.

¶10

And

¶11

Bank of Maharashtra Rep by its Authorised Officer 6-2-938/39, 1st Ftoor Purni Plaza, Opp: Shadan College Kh a i ra ta ba d, H ydera ba d - S0OO04.

¶12

Sundara Satyanarayana S/o Late BSR Rao Aged about 60 years Occ: Business, R/o 8-102

¶13

SA No, 505/2024

¶14

¶15

Windsor Apartments Beg u m pet, H ydera ba d - 5 00 0 1 6.

¶16

S. S. I n fra structu re Deve I o pm e nt consultants Ltd., Rep by its Authorised Signatory CIN : 145401TG2007P1CO54360 Office: 15, labbar Building Beg u m pet, H yde ra bad^- 5000 1 6.

¶17

.....Respondents.

¶18

Counsel for the Applicants : Ms. Soumya Tadimalla. Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Adrian Kiran Raj. Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Exparte.

¶19

-:9_B_0_E_B:-

¶20

The Applicant filed the^present Securitization^{Application u/s. 17} of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002 assailing the action} of 1st respondent bank^{in takingthe physical possesslonof the} schedule^properties through^{Advocate Commissioner appointed} by the learned CJM and to^{restore the physical possessionof} the SA Schedule^{properties to the applicants.}

¶21

The facts of the case as averred^by the^{applicantin the SA,in} brief, are;

¶22

According to the applicants^{respondent No'2has taken a loan of} Rs.1,38,OO,OO0/- from the applicants^{land 2 to meet his} business needs in different^{tranches between05.11.2020 to} 15.12.2022. In turn respondent^{No.2allowedthe physical} possession of the SA schedule^properties to the^{applicantsand} applicants are^{presently runninqa school from the properties} ffi*

¶23

SA No. 505/2024

¶24

belonging to 2nd respondent. Applicants were kept in dark about the mortgage created over the SA schedule properties by the respondent No.2 as a security for the loans availed by him. The respondent No.1 took the physical possession of the properties through Advocate Commissioner under the SARFAESI Act. The said action ofthe respondent No.1 resulted in irreparable loss to the educational institution besides depriving them of recovery of legitimate loans from the respondent No.2 and livelihood. Therefore, applicants pray for repossession of the properties and dismissal of securitisation measuTes taken by the respondent No.1.

¶25

While respondent No.1 bank filed reply statement respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte.

¶26

The sum and substance of the reply statement of the respondent No.1 bank, in brief, is:

¶27

At the outset, applicants have no locus standi to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the secured assets for recovery of dues from the respondents 2 and 3 borrowers. The respondent bank has every right to enforce the mortgage and in the process to dispossess the applicants from the schedule properties. The transactions between the applicants and respondents 2 and 3 is subsequent to the mortgage apparenfly done to create hurdles in the SARFAESI proceedings. The respondents 2 and 3 have no right or authority to deal with the applicants in any manner in respect of the mortgaged properties at the back of the secured creditor. The applicants and respondents 2 and 3 are hand in glove with each other to stall the SARFAESI proceedings. The AC{9cate Commissioner

¶28

SA No. 505/2024

¶29

appointed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act has taken over the physical possession of the schedule properties. Therefore, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.^perused the written arguments filed by the applicants and the respondent No.1 bank and the material placed on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for both sides stick to their respective pleadings and prayed for orders in their own favour.

¶32

Now the points that arise for determination are:-

¶33

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

¶34

ii) To what relieJ?

¶35

Point No.^(i):

¶36

B, Applicants filed the present SA challenging the action of respondent bank No.1 in taking over the^{physical possession} of the schedule properties under SARFAESI Act citing a rent-free physical possession of the properties allowed by respondent No.2 against the loans extended by them, Admittedly, there^is no written document to prove the terms of lease if any, date of handing over of the premises evidencing the contention of the alleged agreement between the^parties. However, a^perusal of the photostat copy of Trade Licence placed on record by the applicants shows the date of^permission to^carry on the Tradel

¶37

ffi*tu

¶38

SA No, 505/2024

¶39

Operation of Madhav Enterprises i.e., applicants from the subject premises as 28.01.2023. Whereas the electricity bills relied on by the applicants pertain to September and October, 2024. Respondent bank did not choose to disclose the date of sanction of loans. However, as per the list of documents dated 03.07 .2025^placed on record by the respondent Bank No.1, the demand notice was issued on 10.04.2024 and the possession notice was issued on 25.06.2024. The contents of the demand notice at para 3 mentions the date of execution of deed of hypothecation as 30.10.2019. Therefore, it can be presumed that the loan transaction between respondents pertain to the year 2019. Against this back drop, the loan transactions between the applicants and the respondent No.2 commenced from 05.11.2020.

¶40

The possession notice has been issued on 26.06.2024. Thereafter, respondent bank issued sale notice dated 26-07 -2024 putting the properties for auction sale on 06.o9.2024 vide Annexure-g of the SA. Whereas the impugned advocate commissioner notlce was issued on 18.10.2024. Therefore, applicants do have knowledge of mortgage of the properties as back as 26.06.2024 i.e., the date of issuance of possession notice by way of affixture and publication of the same and much before the issuance of Advocate Commissioner notice. Admittedly, the alleged arrangement between the applicants and the respondent No.2 has not been reduced into writing. Therefore, such bald statements are baseless and as such need no consideration. This Tribunal is not the^proper adjudicating authority to resolve interse disputes between parties associated with the financial matters. The remedy for / ./,4ry-- /./^/\'| "t,t' { -.,

¶41

sA No. 50s/2024

¶42

such disputes lies elsewhere. Considering the fact of the physical possession of the properties having already been taken by the respondent bank, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. Accordingly, the SA is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Point No.(ii):

¶44

In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the 30' day ofJanuary. 2026.

¶48

'n court on lhis lhe

¶49

,/ $*pr\

¶50

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Abhinav Didigi v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Didigi v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Jitendra Singh Rathore versus Union Bank of India

Harinath Pendyala versus Axis Bank

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Mr. Ayathulla Khan

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Marri Krishna Reddy

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Amgothu Shekhar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kumbam Tirupataiah