Dismissed

D Bikshapathi v. The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd

DRT9 Jul 2025SA/141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal disposed of an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant alleged improper service of a demand notice and lack of advertisement/affixation. The respondent proved compliance with statutory requirements. The tribunal found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application (S.A. No. 141/2023) was dismissed with a direction to dispose of any pending interlocutory applications.

D Bikshapathi versus The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE gTH DAY OF JULY,2C.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No. 141/2c23

¶4

D.Bikshapathi, S/o D.Mysaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ:employee, R/o 5- ll-12312, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer Regd Office:21, patullos Road, Chennai-600 OO2. ... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri T.Sridhar Reddg Counselfor Respondent : Sri S.Nagesh Reddg

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act,2O02) challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.O3.2O25 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶12

availedhousing loan from the Respondent and he has loan instalments regularly. Suddenly, on 08.04.2023 ming to be recovery agents of the Respondent, came to rty and demented the Applicant to vacate the

¶13

scheduleproperty and they furnished a copy of the possession notice dt.24.o3.2o23 to the Appricant. In the said possession notice, there is a reference about the demand notice dt.02.01.2023 but the said demand notice was not served on the Applicant.The impugned possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent filed their Reply denying arl the adverse alegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Later, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice d,t.O2.Oi..2o23ul s t3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2and the said notice was received by the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice d,t.24.O5.2022 u/ s l3(a) of the Act. The said possession notice was arfixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there are no violations in taking symbolic possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

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

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. whether the Applicant has established ang ualid. ground s for challenging the^possession Notice dt.24.03.2o23 issued . bg the against the schedule property?

¶19

*
Og JULM
\f

¶20

Polnt lVo.(il:-

¶21

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

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent issued possession notice to the Applicant.

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondentfailed to serve demand notice on the Applicantand the impugned possession was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property and so, the said possession notice is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶24

Per contra, Respondentcontended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶25

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that'after classifying the loan account as NPA as #_e,:${^{Suidelines of RBI, theRespondent issued demand notice} /d$'nz$f,&Ap "1"^{13(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the said} r# the said notice was received bv the Appricant ;ffi.:::T*::"::|:"t ceflb$!1he postal track reports filed by the Respondent. When * ; 0 $ndlteffi"..,t* ili,.a^{to comply with} rhe said demand notice, the tB- rl '"itt' fr&n,,,"o1tii;

¶26

Respondent issued Possession notice dt.24.O3.2023 and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice. The said possession notice was published in two 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 Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶27

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶28

Potnt No.(tl):-

¶29

In the resuit, SA 14 I / 23 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

l3.Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed by her, conected, signed and pronounced bg me in ttrc open court on this the^gthdag of Julg, 2025).

¶32

sdl-
(G. GOPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
TBTIE GOPY
. ,
nffi,g'2
Of,T.I, TI'IDERAI,,
4

D Bikshapathi v. The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Bikshapathi v. The Sundaram Home FinanceLtd

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 Mr. Palnati Vamsi Krishna

Smt Sangavarapu Kalyani versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maspelly Vittal versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Pasula Chandrashekar versus Union Bank of India

B N Ramgopal versus Idbi Bank

B Aruna versus Indian Bank