Dismissed

Kamepalli Padmavathi v. Union Bank of India

DRT6 Mar 2026SA/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a secured creditor's proceedings for physical possession of property. The court held that the creditor followed statutory procedures, noting that notice by registered post and newspaper publication sufficed despite the absence of physical affixation on the property.

What did the court decide?

The Sabhasad Application (SA) No. 96/2024 was dismissed with no merits found in favor of the applicant.

Kamepalli Padmavathi versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.96,/2024

¶5

Mrs. Kamepalli Padmavathi, W/o K.Srinivasulu, Proprietor:Akanksha Industries Aged 48 years, Occ:business, Pashamylaram, Medak District-5o2307.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer, HMT Colony, Chintal, Narsapur, Medak District . .. Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Si T.Vijag lstmar Counsel for Respondent ; Sn A. V.S.S.Prasad

¶10

Reserued on : 20.01.2026 Pronounced on : O6.03.2026 Uploaded on : O6.O3.2O26

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for ysical possession of the schedule property through Advocate r pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri in Crl.M.P. 124^{and alsoto declare the} sarne as illegal and void. irffi The avefrnents made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶13

1 crore to the Respondent Bank and the balance amount due is Rs. 1.60 crores. Due to hnancial problems, the Applicant could not pay

¶14

some instalments and requested the Bank to regularize the account. But without considering the same, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O2.08.2O23 and the said notice was not served on the Applicant. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and guarantor, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt.02.0L.2024 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that M/s Akanksha Industries represented by its Proprietor St.Kamepalli Padmavathi availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule propert5r and another property belonged to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Applicant committed default and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 27.O7.2023 as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice dt.18.IO.2023 and the Applicant personally acknowledged the said notice and the earlier demand notice issued on 02.O8.2023 was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Bank issued possession notice dt.02.01.2024 to the Applicant and guarantor and the said notice was published in Indian Mail and Nava Telangana daily newspapers. Subsequently, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri in Crl.M.P.No.54l24 and the advocate commissioner issued vacate notice dt.24.O2.2024. Thereafter, t_f; eank uo issued Redemption notice dt. 16.01.2024 to the Applicant .,,.:l'hdtbth.is^{aiidit$._er,.q.are no violations. Accordingly,Respondent prayed} ' #^r,, dtsmtq-s ',the -^SAll ,:^,i ii-i ;: A 8fifi.rfi)rrffi l,' ",f1 "^{\ :''"1! .:} , i'

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. uhetLrcr the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the sclrcdule propertg u/ s 1 4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶20

ii. To rohat relief ?

¶21

Point No.lil:-

¶22

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

¶23

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed various loan facilities from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following Rule 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶25

Per contra, Re ndent contended that they have duly followed the proced under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2O02 and g all the statutory notices to the Applicant , ,.! andf^{glso in takingphysichl. possession of the schedule propert5r u/s 14 of} ,1 E rhe SARF&6;rr,#,?n?P,

¶26

¶27

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.02.08.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was withdrawn and thereafter, the Bank issued another demand notice dt.18.1O.2023 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others and the said notice was personally served on the Applicant as evidenced by her signature on the copy of the demand notice filed by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.18.1O.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication fiIed by the Respondent. However, no documents are filed by the Respondent to prove that the said possession notice was aflixed on the schedule property. But mere nonaffixture of the possession notice on the schedule property particularly when the Applicant is having knowledge of the possession notice issued by the Respondent, cannot be a ground to challenge the said notice. When the Applicant received the possession notice and the said notice is also published in two daily newspapers including one in vernacular language, even if the said notice is not affixed on the secured asset, it cannot be a ground for the borrower as the affixture is meant only for the general public. In this regard, tlne Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s Solithro Pritnte Limited Vs. The Debts recoaery Tribunal-l, reported in 2078 SCC Online Hgd 788, has held in l--oE, 17, which is as follows:

¶28

l--oE,
,:i- ,! : ' .:r.ir ,v:1,:' -i- . rli .i , L .t\ , ,ii1, i'. ..
,i, n',, n ^ _ 17.'fr this regard", it mag be noted that Rule 8(1) of tlrc Rules of
l, :' U 6 flAfr lWEoo2"reiquires t?rc authorised. officer of the seanred. creditor to
l
' ;* "t
.,' 1. t;-o* dg,liuer a posses sion notice, prepared. as nearlg as possib le in
t**.'. '-".'* ,, ., .';4ppendix-M ,, ^:' to the Rules of 2002, to tlp borrower andbg affing
\ .,,, 4
_.\o,*,,.-:

¶29

it on the outer door or at a conspicuous place of the property. It is not in dispute that the borrower companA receiued the possession notice dated 04.08.2012. TLe complaint uas that it had not been aJfixed on the SA scledule propertA. Affixture o.f such possession notice on the outer door or at a conspicuous place of the propertg is notice to the public at large. This is clear from the contents of the stahttory format of the possession notice in Appendix-N to the Rules of 2002. Thereunder, the borrouter in particular and the public in general are cautioned not to deal uith the propertg. In such a situation, it is not open to the bonouer companA, hauing alreadg receiued the possession notice dated 04.08.2O12, to complain of failure on the part of ING Vgsga Bank Limited in affinng the notice on tte premises of tle secured assets. If at all, such a gieuonce could be projected bg a member of the general public uho dealt utith the secured assets in ignorance of ttrc possession notice. Such is not the case presentlg.

¶30

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt. 18.1O.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2.

¶31

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act,2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In

¶32

stadt aase, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the ,:! :, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CMM,

¶33

jgiri u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.54l24

¶34

0 S.ffiffiment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession property. Ld.CMM, Malkajgiri after considering the

¶35

matcrial appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical

¶36

possession of the schedule propert5r and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule propert5r and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Bank also issued 30 days sale notice however, the Appiicant has not challenged the said notice in the present SA.

¶37

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the 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,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶38

Potnt No.(tl)t

¶39

In the result, SA 9612024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶40

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

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(actubd to the P.s, transcibed bg h.er, corrected, signed and. pronounced. by me in the open court on this the SrH d.ag of Marcly 2O26)

¶43

sd/-
(G. GOPr CHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
'j
1ftUT COPY,
0s;rffi"
DRT-I, $yt<br>

Kamepalli Padmavathi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamepalli Padmavathi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus M/S. Perfect Electronics

Bejugam Vijay Kumar versus Shriram Finance limited

K.SunilKumar versus Union Bank of India

Vonturu Srinivasa Rao versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Illuri

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India