Dismissed

Piske Manohar v. Sreenivasa Padmavathico Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT9 Sept 2026SA/60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act application, the applicant challenged the bank's attempt to take physical possession of mortgaged property, alleging non-service of mandatory notices. The tribunal found that demand and possession notices were duly served and published, and proceedings were valid. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Piske Manohar versus Sreenivasa Padmavathico Operative Urban… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9rH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.60,/2025

¶5

Piske Manohar, S/o late P.Vittal, Aged 49 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5- 1 os / 99 I 5 I 2, Shiva Sai Nagar colony, Bhandam Kommu, Patancheru, Sangareddy Dist-502O32..

¶6

. . . Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sreenivasa Padmavathi Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer H.No.2O-11-39lG1, Ushodaya Apartments, HUDA, Complex, Main Road, Saroornagar, Hyderabad R.R. District-sOO 035.

¶9

Counsel for tLe Applicant : Si P.Prakash Raju Counsel for Respondent : Si Mettu Sriniuas Reddy

¶10

Reserued on : 21.O7.2O26 Pronounced on :09.09.2026 Uploaded on :09.09.2O26

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging tlprp.Ig9:99._dings initiated by the Respondent for taking physic"r,1,eZii+qiilii;rGi1pik schedule property pursuant to the orders or Ld,.gJ.,$ ilffi.dd;s -.^p. No. 333 / 2024.

¶13

'i -r-\t

¶14

ii : 0gsiP2m .-li 2. The avermerl$ -r-a. in tfr. l"ii,f ,.q!!o., in brief, are that: ".^''-":'';, -ii^.":. . j .,r.:r.,::. t r t.d..!,;:1,.t ':. r-'.-r-. -::'.: ,.^','-'

¶15

Applicant along with his family members availed housing loan of Rs.10 Iakhs from the Respondent in the year 2018 against the mortgage of schedule property as security for the repayment of the loan. Due to the loss in the business during Covid-19, the Applicant could not^pay some instalments. The Respondent illegally declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA and initiated proceedings under the^provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Without serving demand notice and^possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway^proceeded for taking physical possession of the secured asset u/s 14 of the Act without following due process of law. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶16

¶17

The Respondent filed their Counter and adopted the same as Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant along with his wife Smt.P.Manjula availed housing loan from the Respondent whereas P.Shankar, P.Manikya Prabhu stood as guarantors and the Applicant along with guarantors created mortgage against the schedule property. After availing loan, the Applicant committed default in repayment of dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021 as per the guidelines of RBI. Accordingly, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice and possession notice by following the procedure and thereafter proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through mmissioner pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No.l97 123 the same, the Applicant filed SA 446123 before this tained conditional stay. But the Applicant failed to order and the said SA was dismissed for default 0s 1 ereafter in the absence of subsisting stay order, the further and initiated fresh proceedings for taking ssion of the schedule property by {iling 12024^{and the Ld.CJM,Sangareddyappointedadvocate} 2

¶18

commissioner and the advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant and guarantors to vacate the secured asset and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

i. taLether tte Applicant has establislrcd ang ualid^grounds for challenging tle proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phy sical possession of tle schedule propertg u/ s 1 4 of the SARFAES/ Act, 2002?

¶22

ii. To what relief?

¶23

Point IVo.(i) :-

¶24

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and^Ld. Counsei for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶25

7 . The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant along^{with his wife} availed housing loan from the Respondent against the^{mortgage of the} schedule property. After availing the loan, the^{Applicant committeddefault} in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account^{was classifiedas NPA} by the Res t1y, the Respondent initiated^proceedings I Act,2OO2 and also initiated^proceedings

¶26

for of the schedule property u/s 14 of the

¶27

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice, straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property without following the procedure and So, the said proceedings are null and void.

¶29

Per contra, Respondent contended that admittedly, the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the loan agreement and so, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI. So, the Respondent issued all the mandatory notices to the Applicant and guarantors by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. The Applicant earlier filed SA 446123 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and the said SA was dismissed for default and thereafter, the Respondent initiated fresh proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the secured asset and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶30

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed material documents along with the counter filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.23.09.2o22 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal rts filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper

¶31

.,,r.',''dll p}$ti."ti3*gik by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand

¶32

,:l I

¶33

ii*{i 1o-,i.9--o_"^{tngf,nnficant. Thereafter, the Respondentissuedpossession} tiii :-i 0 s , f fd" f.f"SB0 *ryiii2O22 and the said notice was served on the Applicant as postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The

¶34

!,f' notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced

¶35

*Hff-g$ffi'fs of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property as evidenced by the copies of

¶36

photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)(2) of Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice dt.26. 12.2022 u/s 13(4) of the Act. Ho'*'ever, challenging the said notices in the present SA is barred by limitation. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Sangareddy in Crl.M.P.No.333/24 issued notice to the Applicant and guarantors to vacate the schedule property. Challenging the said proceedings, the Applicant fi1ed the present SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingiy, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Appiicant.

¶37

Point No.(il)t

¶38

In the result, SA 60/25 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interiocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced. bg me in the open 2026)

¶41

cEp ril2F

¶42

sd/-
(G. GOPI CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
ilost
oPt-t. HYo1ttil "
5

Piske Manohar v. Sreenivasa Padmavathico Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piske Manohar v. Sreenivasa Padmavathico Operative Urban Bank 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

Union Bank of India versus Vijay Kumar

City Union Bank Limited versus Vijaya Lakshmi

Bugga Naveen versus Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Mr. Ramavath Laxma and others

Mohan Abbugari versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Bekkanti Mamatha