Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the securitization application challenging the asset reconstruction company's action under the SARFAESI Act to take possession of mortgaged property. The court held the procedural requirements were met.
The Securitization Application under section 13(4) of the Act is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY,2026
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.7O /2025
Versus
M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction(P) Ltd., C/515, Kanakia Zillion, Junction of LBS Rd., & CST Road, BKC nnexe, near equinox, Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400 070. Rep. by its Authorized Offrcer. Respondent
Counsel for_ Si Prakash Raju.
Si Veera Shiua Kumar.
22.04.2026
,a 5 fiAY 2m6 25.05.2026
to tlrc Website on 26.05.2026
RDERi
1. The Securitization Application under section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act, challenging the measures taken by the Respondent
SA. No.70/2025
u/s.13(4) of the Act, 2OO2, including the action of the Respondent to take physical possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the Advocate Comrnissioner's Notice dt.74.O2.2O25, issued in Cr1.M.P.No.36 of 2025 on the file of the Ld. XVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad.
The averments made by the Applicants in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicants, who are husband & wife, availed Home Loan facility of Rs.46,72,O491- in the year 2019 from the Induslnd Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property. After availing the loan, the Applicants were regular in paying the loan instalments and however, due to Covid-19, the business of the Applicant No.1 sustained losses and the Applicants could not repay the loan installments. Despite requests made by the Applicants to Induslnd Bank for granting some time, the Respondent herein had issued Possession Notice dt.18.O5.2O22 u/s. 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act r/w Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 20O2. The Applicants were never informed about the assignment of debt by Induslnd Bank to Respondent herein. The Respondent herein without following the due procedure under the Act and the Rules, 2002, proceeded u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence, the SA.
J. The Respondent filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent, in brief, are that, The Applicants, after availing the loan facility, committed default in the repayment of the loan amount and as such their loan account was classified as NPA on 06.08.2021 . l,ater, the original Bank has assigned the debt of the vide Assignment Deed dt.30.09.202 1. The creditor had again issued Demand u/s. Act,2OO2 and same was served upon Notice was also published in 'Nava newspapers dt.2O.O5.2O22. As the
SA.No.70/2025
Applicants failed to liquidate the loan outstanding, the Respondent took symbolic possession of the schedule propert5r by issuing Possession Notice dt.18.05.2o22. The said Possession Notice was served on the Applicants, alfixed on the schedule property and thereafter published in 'Financial Express' and l[ava Telaagana' newspapers dt.2O.O5.2O22. T}:e Respondent has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2OO2, the present SA may be dismissed.
Now, the points that arise for consideration are,
Polnt No.l t-
,2OO2 af,d to substantiate thesame, the
documents. I have perused the said documents.
N*g,,'
SA. No.70/2025
with the said notice.A copy of the PossessionNotice dt.18.o5.2022aJotgwildt postal receipts, postal trackreports frled by the Respondentclearlyestablish that t].e Respondenthas served the saidPossessionNoticeto the Applicants. Copies of newspaperpublicationof PossessionNoticeand copy of photograph depicting aJflxture ofPossessionNotice on the schedulepropertyamplyproves tJre compliance ofRules 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Since theApplicants have failedto clear the outstanding dues despite issuance of DemandNotice and Possession Notice,the Respondenthas initiated proceedings u/s.14 of theSARFAESIAct to take physical possessionof the schedule property.
Polnt No.(lll:.
(Diclated. to te Priuate Secfetary,transc-ribedbg her, @fiected,, signed and pfonounedbg me in the open@u/t on this the 2gh dagoJ Mag,2026).
sd/(G. C'OPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
2 5 frA,t T?_6
c;w
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act?
To what relief is the applicant entitled to?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Mohammed Adil and Mrs. Sanjuman
M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction (P) Ltd.
Gummandi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
