Allowed

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

DRT4 May 2026SA/507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act to quash a pre-sale notice dated 13.10.2025, holding that the bank failed to justify its proceedings or comply with mandated provisions and rules.

What did the court decide?

The pre-sale notice dated 13.10.2025 against the schedule property is quashed. Respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh by following SARFAESI Act provisions.

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju versus Encore Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF^{MAY, 2026}

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶3

SA.No.5O7 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Kyramkonda Kanaka^Raju Male, S/o K. Narsimulu, aged About 35^years, occ: agriculture, H.No.1-7, Near Yallamma temPle, Issanagar, Upparpally, BibiPet(M), Domakonda, Kamareddy, Nizamabad - 503 111

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Ltd, Corporate office at 5th floor, Plot no.137, Sector - 44, Gurugram - 122 OO2, Haryana, India.

¶9

Represented by its Authorised officer

¶10

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Ltd, Registered office at Caddie Commercial Tower, Regus Business centre,5th floor, Aerocity (Dial), New Delhi - 110 037. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶11

Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

o.1 &2 0 4 tlAy^lllrfi

¶14

Shri A. Vijay Kumar Exparte

¶15

(SA. No.507/202s)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The applicant filed Securitisation Application under Section¹⁷ of^the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Flnancial^{Assets and} Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the^{Pre Sale} Notice dated 13.10.2025 under Rule 8(6) of SARFAESI Act and without following the rules,^provisions, regulations and^procedures as^prescribed under SARFAESI Act.

¶18

The case in brief is that applicant herein availed Home^{loan facilityin} the year 202L for a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs and^{was repaying} the^loan amount regularly without any default. The Applicant moftgaged^his immovable property in favour of Respondent bank more^fully descried in the schedule to SA. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Applicant could not keep the account regular. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to follow the due^process of law and issued the demand notice dated Lt.1t.2023 and possession notice dated 25.01.2025 regarding schedule property of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder. The respondents failed to issue/ serve the possession notice and respondents also failed to affix the possession notice at

¶19

s place of the property and also failed to publish in z.+ "-ffi.,.I pers and thereby not followed the procedure hF gP ule B(1) and (2). The respondents before f'E'i'[h?"frr2#nd j A oublishino Pre-Si notice dated 13.10.2025 failed to issue 30 days ffirn,rtW wi!r,!ig

¶20

(SA. No.s071202s)

¶21

notice as required under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement)} Rules, 2002. The respondents violated B(5), B(6) and 8(7) of Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶22

Notice served to Respondents. Respondent No.1 & 2 called absent and set exparte.

¶23

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶24

Now the point for consideration is

¶25

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid^grounds for setting aside the Pre- sale notice dated 13.10.2025 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule^property?

¶26

ii) To What Relief?

¶27

Point no.i)

¶28

The Applicant filed the^present SA challenging the Pre-Sale notice dated 13.10.2025 in respect of schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to^justify their action by filing reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed proceeding against the secured asset. The

¶29

li^6- /k * evinced any interest in contesting the matter (, &"an [${" opportunities and failed to appear and file rd

¶30

\d,r \tr .4gply .' alon to disprove the allegations of Applicant. 4r"1'rirvol \i'o.,,eiil 3

¶31

(SA. No.s0712025)

¶32

In the absence of any material evidence to show that^the Respondents have duly complied with the mandated^{provisions of} SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while^proceeding against^{the secured} asset by issuing Pre-Sale notice dated^13.10.2025, I^{hold that the} Applicant has made a case for^quashing the^{measuresinitiated by the} Respondents against the SA schedule^propefty under the^provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as^such, the^{SA is liable} to be allowed.

¶33

Point no,ii)

¶34

In the result,5A.507 12025 is allowed.

¶35

Accordingly, the Pre- sale notice dated 13.10.2025 against schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondents are at liberty to^proceed afresh against the SA schedule^propertyto recover their dues by duly following the^provisions under SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶36

The Interlocutory Applications,^pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me in the^open the 4th May, 2026)

¶39

6'"k<br>

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

: o r r,!AY ,rffi l)i

¶42

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

Bejugam Veerabadhram versus Indian Overseas Bank

Madala Venkata Srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India

Mr Dharavath Ramachandru versus Canfin Homes Limited

Gollurri Gopal versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S Sindhu Textiles