Dismissed

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT28 Jul 2026SA/569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application filed by borrowers to set aside a mortgagor bank's right to take possession of their residential property. The Court found sufficient proof of compliance with statutory notice requirements under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending are closed.

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport versus Unity Small Finance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2BTH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 569 OF 2025

¶5

M/S T.R.M.R EARTH MOVERS & TRANSPORT, Represented By Its Proprietor Mr. Rohith Reddy, S/o Raja Malla Reddy, Situated at H.No.2-131/132, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500067.

¶6

Mr. ROHITH REDDY THOTA, S/o Raja Malla Reddy, Co-Borrower & Mortgagor, R/o Villa No.138, Ashoka La Maison, Kompally-Doolapally Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500014,

¶7

Mr. THOTA PRASHANTHI, W/o Rohith Reddy, R/o Villa No.13B, Ashoka La Maison, Kompally-Doolapally Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500014.

¶8

MT. ANNAPUREDDY PREETHISHA, R/o Villa No.138, Ashoka La Maison, Kompally-Doolapally Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500014

¶9

.Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

UNITY SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, Represented by Its Authorised Officer, Situated at 5th Floor, Centrum House, CST Road, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400098

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : M/s. M. Madhavi Latha Counsel for Respondent : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj 0w.*

Page 2 of 5

SA No. 569/2025

-:ORDER:-

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside the action of respondent bank from taking physical possession of the SA Schedule Properties via vacate notice dated 24.11.2025 pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No.139 of 2025 by the Hon'ble Principal Senior Chief Judge cum VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal - Malkajgiri in pursuance to possession notice dated 13.08.2025 under section 13(4) of the Act.

¶18

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the loan account was classified as NPA without proper intimation, the demand notice under Section 13(2) was based on inflated and unexplained outstanding amounts without furnishing statements of account or calculation sheets, and that their requests for restructuring and settlement were ignored. It is further contended that the affidavit filed by the Bank before the Magistrate did not contain the mandatory declarations required under the second proviso to Section 14, including compliance with Sections 13(2) and 13(3A), and that there was no proof of service of statutory notices upon all borrowers. The applicants further submit that the Magistrate passed a mechanical and non-speaking order without recording independent satisfaction, while the Advocate Commissioner issued the vacate notice without furnishing copies of the Section 14 application or the supporting documents, thereby depriving the applicants of an effective opportunity to challenge the proceedings. They also assert that the secured asset is a residential house occupied by family members and that the direction to break opens the premises was issued without adherence to the statutory safeguards. The applicants further dispute the Bank's claim of persistent default, alleging that repayments had ' ,/lt*/qr'r\ 41,

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

sA No.569/202s

¶21

been made and that the dues were inflated due to improper appropriation of payments. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicants seek to set aside the measures initiated by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act and grant consequential reliefs.

¶22

The Respondent Bank filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that the applicants have suppressed material facts and approached the Tribunal with unclean hands. The respondent submits that the applicants' loan account was classified as NPA on 05.05.2025 and, upon issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) dated 15.05.2025, followed by the possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 11.08.2025, all measures under the SARFAESI Act were undertaken strictly in accordance with law. It is further contended that the order dated 21.11.2025 passed under Section 14 and the consequential Advocate Commissioner's warrant/vacate notice dated 24.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.139 of 2025 were validly issued after due satisfaction by the learned Magistrate, and that all statutory requirements under Sections 13(2), 13(34), L3(4), and 14 of the SARFAESI Act were duly complied with, including service and publication of possession notices. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank prays for dismissal of the S.A.

¶23

The right of learned counsel of the applicants to advance arguments was forfeited on 08.07.2026, after affording ample of opportunities. Learned counsel for the respondent reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by the respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, Oerii?i8^:tnb averments made by the Applicants, and placed reliance on the documents annexed thereto. It was contended that the loan account was rightly classified as a NPA ^ "rffw;;h the RBI suiderines

¶25

Page 4 of 5

¶26

SA No.569/2025

¶27

and that all measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002 were initiated after strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶28

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶29

i) Whether the applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the action of the Respondent Bank for taking the physical possession of the SA schedule properties through Advocate Commissioner appointed under the provision of the Section 74 of the SARFESI Act?

¶30

ii) To what relieQ

¶31

Point No.(i):

¶32

The Respondent Bank has filed material documents annexed with the reply statement to prove the compliance of the SARFESI Act and Rules, thereunder. Pages 1 to 18 are the Photostat copies of postal receipts, tracking reports, affixture of the demand notice over the secured asset and paper publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspaper on 23.05.2025 proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 19 to 32, are the Photostat copies of possession notice 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 13.08.2025. The documents placed on record by the Respondent Bank remain undisputed. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, B(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFES\ proceedings, which canAot be categorized as ittesator arbitrary.^t, OSI'tt

OSI'tt

Page 5 of 5

SA No. 56912025

B. In the view of above observation, I hold that the applicants failed to make out any valid grounds to interdict the SARFESI measures of Respondent Bank in respect of the SA Schedule properties including the action of taking physical possession of the same under section L4 of the Act 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

L2. 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 me in the open court on this the 28'h day of luly, 2026).

¶43

[DW']'A (RktqESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport 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

Kallakuntla Janardhan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Vinayaka Cold Storage versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Sri.Ashish Rahul Bhupathi and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Nunavath Pentya

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Hitha Net India Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Jaya Shakthi Rail Mech.