Dismissed

Akula Sreenivas v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT9 Sept 2026SA/56/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued by Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. under the SARFAESI Act, finding sufficient proof of compliance with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending are closed with no order as to costs.

Akula Sreenivas versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 56 OF 2026

¶5

Sri. Akula Sreenivas S/o. Sri Ramuloo Akula, Gender: tYale, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No.7-85, Gandhari, Nizamabad, Telangan-503114

¶6

..............App1icant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Unity Small Finance Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorized officer, Regd Office: Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, Pin code: -110057. Branch Office: No.6-3- 1086, Vista Grand Tower, Residential Premises, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hydera bad, Telangana- 500082

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Smt. K. Swetha Counsel for Respondent : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶11

-:91_D_EE:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.77 of the Securitisation and^{Reconstruction} of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{("Act" hereinafterfor} short) assailing^possession notice dated 08.01.2026 under^section 13(4) of the Act in respect of the SA Schedule Property.

¶13

The averments of the application, in brief, are^{that the} Respondent Bank sanctioned a secured business loan of Rs.77,53,577/- against the SA Schedule^Property. It is stated^that, though the Applicant was regularly^paying the^{instalments,certain} EMIS remained unpaid due to business^losses and^{reducedincome,} ffi",\

¶14

Page 2 of 5

¶15

sA No. 56/2026

¶16

and he approached^{the Respondent seeking, reg u la risation of the loan} account. The Applicant^{contends that,despitehis request, the} Respondent classified the^{accountas NPA and initiatedSARFAESI} proceedings without duly complying^{withthe requirementsof Section} 13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act and withoutproperlyconsideringhis} objections. It is further^{allegedthat the Possession Noticedated} 08.01.2026 was^{neither affixedat a conspicuous place of the secured} asset nor^published in^{two leadingnewspapers, including one} vernacular newspaper,^{as requiredunder Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the} Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules,2002 (hereinafter"Rules" for} short). The Applicant^{submitsthat substantialamounts have already} been^pald and that he^{is ready and willing to clear the overdue} amounts and regularise^{the account if reasonabletime is granted'} Accordingly, applicant^prays for^{quashingthe measuresinitiated by} the respondent bank against^{the SA Schedule Property.}

¶17

The Respondent Bank filed^{its reply statement along with} supportinq documents. The averments of the^{Respondent,in brief,} are that the Applicant availed a secured^{Buslness Loan againstSA} Schedule Property, and committed defaults in^{repayment despite} repeated reminders and opportunities to^{regularisethe account.Upon} failure to pay three consecutive^instalments, the^{loan account was} classified as NPA in accordance with the applicable^{RBI guidelines.} Thereafter, the Respondent issued a^DemandNotice under^Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and subsequently^{issuedPossession Notice} dated 08.01.2026 under Section 13(4) of the Act. The^Respondent asserts that the Possession Notice was duly served upon^the Applicant through RPAD, affixed on the secured^propertyand published in two leading newspapers, includinq one vernacular newspaper, in compliance with Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the^Rules, 2002. The Respondent denies the allegations of regular^payment, /fu<"& ( -,' '0u:'

¶18

PaSe 3 of5

¶19

sA No. s6l2026

¶20

request for regularisation, non-compliance with the statutory procedure and failure to consider the Applicant's objections, and contends that the Applicant has approached the Tribunal^wlth unclean hands after suppressing material facts, with the intentlon of delaying recovery. Accordingly, the Respondent^{praysfor dismissalof the S.A.}

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant and^{learned counsel for the} respondent reported no oral arguments'^{Perusedthe written} arguments flled by the applicant^{and respondent and also perused the} material brought on record.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the^{Applicantin the written arguments} reiterated the contentions of^{the applicationand submits that the} Respondent Bank failed to^{comply with the provisionsof the} SARFAESI Act, 2002 read^{wlth the Ruies framedthereunder.} Accordingly, Learned Counsel^{submlttedthat the measures initiated} by the Respondent against^{the S A. Schedule Property are liableto be} set aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the^{Respondent Bank also in the wrltten} arguments reiterated the^{contents of its reply and denied the} averments made in the^{SA and placed reliance upon the documents} filed along with the^{reply statement.It was submittedthat the loan} account was classified^{as a NPA in accordancewith the RBI guidelines} and that the^{RespondentBank had strictlycomplied with the} procedure prescribed under the Act and the^{Rules,2002 thereunder'} Accordingly^prayed for dismissal^{of the SA.}

¶24

The^points for consideration^{are as follows :} -

¶25

i) Whether the Applicant^{made out any valid ground to} quashing of the possession notice dated 08.07.2026^under

0{'r)\

Page 4 of 5

sA No. s5l2025

section 13(4) of the Act in respect of the SA Schedule Property?

¶30

ii) To what relief?

¶31

Point No.(i):

¶32

Admittedly, applicant availed secured business loan against mortgage of schedule Property and failed to make payment as per repayment schedule. Hence the action of the Respondent Bank in classification of account as NPA and initiating the SARFESI proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by the applicant.

¶33

To controvert the Applicant's contention regarding noncompliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Respondent Bank has relied upon and placed on record copies of the relevant documents annexed to its Reply Statement. Pages 1 to 8 of the material paper annexed to the reply statement are the^photostat copies of postal receipts, acknowledgement card and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 29.08.2025 proving service of demand notice. Similarly, pages 9 to 17 are the photostat copies of possession notice dated 08.01.2026 being served via registered post, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 09.01.2026. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act read with Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arOitrarVffix*

¶34

Page 5 of 5

¶35

SA No.55/2026

¶36

In view of above observations, it is concluded that the Applicant failed to establish any ground to set aside possession notice dated 08.01.2026 under section 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 in respect of the SA Schedule Property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed,

¶39

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

t4. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶42

(Typed to my dictotion by the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by mqlft$h9 open court on this thesh doyofseptember,2o26).

¶43

D%q.:s* (Ba'rfesnwnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

sA s6l26

18.08.2026

09.09.2026.

Ms. R lahnavi representing counsel for applicant filed written arguments and reported no oral arguments. Ms. Prasanna representing GAKR counsel for respondent present. For orders, call on 09.09.2026.

¶49

-oj9:j,:,{:l9rl."d^{vide separatesheets. rn the resutt, the} secunttsation application fails and is hereby OismiIseO. consequentty, tntertocutory Applications o"nirino_ iiliJ' shalt stand closed. No order as to costs. Comm"unicaie,j copy -of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶50

1fu:uo.ti P.O.

Akula Sreenivas v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Sreenivas v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

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. Mdh Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Rahul

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Mdh Tvs.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/s Sri Dharani Polymers

Indian Bank versus Venkateswarlu

Icici Bank Limited versus debeshranjan