Dismissed

Syed Kaleem Ullah v. can fin homes limited

DRT1 Aug 2025SA/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act appeal, the Debtor challenged the Respondent's initiation of proceedings to take physical possession of the schedule property via an Advocate Commissioner. The Tribunal examined whether statutory notice requirements were met.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the proceedings to take possession via Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 were upheld as legal and valid.

Syed Kaleem Ullah versus can fin homes limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL,IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE l^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.104/2c24

¶5

Syed KaleemUllahHussaini, S/o Mr.NadeemUllahHussaini,

¶6

Aged 50 years, R/o flat No.103,

¶7

lst floor, Khaja Residency, Plot No. 109,

¶8

Sy.No.308, 309,310, 331, MCH No.8-1-403/109, Laxman Nagar Colony,Tolichowki, Shaikpet, Hyderabad-SOO 008.

¶9

Mrs. SyedaQutubUnisa, W/o Syed KaleemUllahHussaini, Aged 45 years, R/o flat No.103,

¶10

1st floor, Khaja Residency, Plot No.109,

¶11

Sy.No.308, 309,310, 331, MCH No.8-1-403/ 109, Laxman Nagar Colony, Tolichowki, Shaikpet, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ... Applicants

¶12

... Applicants

¶13

And

¶14

The Authorized officer Can Fin Homes Ltd.,

¶15

Lot No. 1, Bindu Elegance,

¶16

Sy.NO. 12,24, pet Basheerbagh,

¶17

Kompally, Hyderabad.

¶18

Can Fin Homes Ltd.

¶19

Rep. by its Branch Maner,

¶20

Lot No. 1, Bindu Elegance, Sy.NO. 1 2,24, Pet Basheerbagh, Kompally, Hyderabad fs,{-JlG} Counsel for Counsel for

¶21

.... Respondents

¶22

SiAbhag Singh Si B. Sreeniuasa Rao

¶23

This app Act, 2OO2, c

¶24

licants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI ritiated by the Respondents for

¶25

taking physical possession of the schedule^property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XVII CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.3267 12023 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶26

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶27

The Applicant No. 1 availed housing loan from the Respondent No.2 by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule^property. Thereafter, the Applicants could notpay some instalments. So the loan account^was classified as NPA and the Respondentsinitiated^{proceedingsfor} taking physical possession of the schedule^property through^advocate commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act,2OO2by filing} Crl.M.P.No.3267 12023 on the file of Ld.XVIICMM,Nampally.^The Respondents have not issued any demand^notice and^possession notice and the impugned possession notice was not^published in^two daily newspapers and it was not aflixed on the schedule^property. Hence the SA.

¶28

The Respondents filed thelr Replydenying all the^{adverse allegations} made in the SA and contended that the Applicants having^availed loan from the 2ndRespondent, committed default in repaying^the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA^and accordingly, l^stRespondent issued demand notice dt.Ol.O4.2O2landpossession notice dt.16.l1.2O2l and^thesaid possession noticewas affixed on the schedule^property and the^said notice was also published in daily newspapers.^Hencethe proceedings initiated by the Respondents u/s 14 of the SARFAESI^Act, 2OO2 before Ld.XVII CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of^advocate comm1ss10 ical possession of the schedule^property are I ,^{Respondents prayed to dismissthe} SA. * r, 01/t")ttrt ?ffi 4. H Counse I for the licants and Ld. Counsel for the Respo on record.

¶29

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶30

i. tuhether the Applicants haue established any ualid. grounds for challenging tle steps initiated by the Respondents for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertg through ad.uocate commissioner?

¶31

ii. To what relief ?

¶32

Point JVo.{i):-

¶33

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶34

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent No.2 by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶35

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice on the Applicants, the Respondents are trying to take physical possession of the schedule property.

¶36

Per contra, Res ents contended that they have duly followed the p er the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and in^issuing all the statutory notices to the steps u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for

¶37

I*^{rryt"iltBgngssiofi} the schedule property. -14 i e)'- .l "^i^ei', t'iir--l'l-"sf'..:ini

¶38

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondents Iiled relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the l "tRespondent issued demand notice dt.o1.o4202lu/s 13(2) of the Act and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.Post and the same was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal trackreports liled by the Respondents. Thereafter, the Respondents issued possession notice dt. 16.1 l.2O2l uls 13(a) of the Act and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondents. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Respondents and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondents. Thus, the Respondents have scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking symbolic possession of the schedule property.

¶39

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after

¶40

issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002, ttre secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent approached Ld.XVIICMM, Hyderabadu/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.XVII CMM, Hyderabad after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate ,iier::viEited the schedule property and issued notice to the the schedule property. So, the said notice issued ioner for taking physical possession of the 'ectly legal and valid.

¶41

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondents before the Ld.XVII CMM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. So I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicants.

¶42

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶43

In the result, SA lO4 124 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶44

t4. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictuted to the P.S tr@nscribed bA her, cotected, signed aftd pronounced bA tue in the opet court on this the la of AugusL 2025).

¶47

,..-..
<br>0t,!
//,uc 2025

¶48

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

COFY

Syed Kaleem Ullah v. can fin homes limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Kaleem Ullah v. can fin homes 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Private Limited

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Devunuri Ashok

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited

Amit Bajaj versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

M S Indiramma Enterprises versus Indian Bank