Dismissed

Sri Gunda Ravi Kumar v. Irep Credit Capital Private Limited

DRT9 Jul 2025SA/120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged steps taken for physical possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal found the demand notice, possession notice, and appointment of an advocate commissioner were legally valid and compliant with the Act and Rules. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal (SA) filed by the applicant is dismissed.

Sri Gunda Ravi Kumar versus Irep Credit Capital Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^gTHDAY OF JULY,2C^25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 12c/2C22

¶5

Sri Gunda Ravi Kumar, S/oVeeraShekar, aged 34 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.2- l-lO9 I A, Peddapally Bus stand Peddapally, Karimnagar Dist.-505 172

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

IREP Credit Capital Pvt.Ltd. Rep.by its Authorized Officer Plot No.C-2O, G Block Near MCA, BandraKunta Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai.

¶9

Omkara Asset Reconstruction P.Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, C/515, Kanakia Zilhon, Junction of LBS Road & CST Road, BKC Annexe, Kurla(w), Mumbai-4}O O7O. .... Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Si D.Raghanrulu

¶11

Counsel for the Resporudent No.7 : Sn V.Santosh Counselfor the Respondent No.2 : Sn M.V.Kini

¶12

-:ORDER:.

¶13

is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Notice dt.16.O5.2O22 issued by the Advocate taking physical possession of the schedule property orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagarconsequent to the 0 $od$bs3fph dt.16. L2.2O21 and to declare the same as illegal

¶14

The Applicant availed loan from the l"tRespondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Thereafter due to Covid19, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the lstRespondent published demand notice dt.2l.l}.2o21u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.Thereafter, the 1st Respondentpublished the possession notice dt.16.12.2021 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Subsequently, the l"t Respondent assigned the debt in favour of the 2"dRespondent. Demand notice and possession notice are not served on the Applicant and the said possession notice was not published in vernacular language newspaper and also not affixed on the schedule property.The Respondent approached Ld.CJM, Karimnagar and obtained orders for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. The said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.16.05.2022 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule premises.Hence the SA.

¶15

The l"tRespondent filed their Replywhich is adopted by the 2nd Respondentdenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the l"tRespondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r, failed to repay the loan dues. Accordingly, the lstRespondent issued demand notice dt.2t.1o.2o21u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was served on the Applicant.Thereafter, the l"tRespondent issued possession notice dt.16.12.2O2I :uls 13(a) of the Act,2OO2 to the Applicant and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers. After issuing possession lg!!ce,^{the Respondent approachedLd.CJM, Karimnagar by filing} -. Orl.M I'}.No.05/22 for appoir-rlmcnt of advocate commissioner for .,:il"^'' . \5. [cal^{possession of the schedule property. The said} 'duocate issioner appointed by Ld.CJM, Karimnagar visited the ,ff and issued notice dt.16.05.2022 to the Applicant 0^g "qtr.ffi.^oq Ww

¶16

to vacate the schedule property. Instead of vacating the schedule prcmiscs, thc- Applicant filed the present SA. Accordingly, Respondcnts prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. uhether the Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for challenging the s/eps initiated by the Resporudents for taking physical possession of the schedule property through aduocate commissioner?

¶20

ii. To what relief ?

¶21

Point^jVo.(i):-

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Cclunsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated sLipra.

¶23

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the l^stRespondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule propcrty to secure the said loan. Thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and thereafter, the l"t Respondent assigned the said debt in favour of the 2.d Respondent and the same to the Applicant.

¶24

of the Applicant is that without servingdemand notice to the Applicant, the Respondents steps for taking physical possession of the

¶25

schedule property through advocate commissioner without following due process of law.

¶26

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to thc Applicant and also in taking steps u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶27

In order to substantiate their contention, l"tRespondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the lstRespondent issued demand notice dt.2l.l}.2o21 u/s 13(21 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post and the said notice sent to the Applicant was returned unserved whereas others rcccived the said notice and so, the lstRespondent published the said demand notice in two daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the lstRespondent issued possession notice dt.16.12.2o21 and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements liled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondents have scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶28

of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, ions^{of Section 14 of SARFAESIAct, 2OO2, the secured} to approach the concerned District Magistrate or

¶29

Il^{&-,d$l-.riffi"i"r} istrate for taking physical possession of the secured t case, after issuing demand notice and possession

¶30

notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Ld. CJM, Karimnagar ufs 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession.of the schedule property. Ld. CJM,Karimnagar after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.16.05.2022 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property and admittedly, the said notice was received by the Applicant. So, the said notice issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is pcrfectly legal and valid

¶31

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld.CJM, Karimnagar u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.

¶32

Point No.(ii):-

¶33

In the result, SA 120/22is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶34

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

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thi.s the^g,hdall

¶37

sd/ - TRUE^coPJ (G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER Asst DRT.I,^H

Sri Gunda Ravi Kumar v. Irep Credit Capital Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gunda Ravi Kumar v. Irep Credit Capital Private 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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Palnati Vamsi Krishna

Smt Sangavarapu Kalyani versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maspelly Vittal versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

D Bikshapathi versus The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd

Pasula Chandrashekar versus Union Bank of India

B N Ramgopal versus Idbi Bank