Dismissed

Smt Satyavathi Moktala v. Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Secunderabad

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant sought to set aside a possession notice. The Tribunal found the account correctly classified as NPA and deemed statutory service valid, dismissing the application for failure to establish any valid ground to set aside the notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; consequently, pending interlocutory applications were ordered to stand closed.

Smt Satyavathi Moktala versus Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), .A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.161 OF 2(J23

¶5

Smt. Satyavathi Mokatla W/o Jangaiah coud M. Aged about 45 years, Occ;Business R/o H.No.10-5-381/A"/1, North Lalaguda Secunderabad 500017

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hinduja Housing Finance Limited O/o 2nd Floor, T19 Towers Karbala Maidan. Ranigunj, Hyderabad 500003 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

...Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. A. Pavan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T. Ranadhir Singh

¶11

-: SLB-OEB:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside the possession notice dated 13.02.2023 against the application schedule^property.

¶13

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that she availed^housing loan of Rs.33 lakhs in the year 2019 from the respondent^for purchase of application schedule property. Due to financial^problems, applicant could not^pay some instalments. Without^{considering the} request to regularize the account, respondent issued demand^notice for Rs.40,62,509/- but not served^personally. The^{possession notice} ,/rfu,,z.<. O/';txt-

¶14

Page 2 of3

¶15

sA No.151/2023

¶16

was not served,^{affixed and published as perRules 8(1) and 8(2)of} the Security^{Interest(Enforcement)Rules, 2OO2 ("Rules") Hence the} SA.

¶17

The^{respondentfiled reply statement along with documents} slaling, inter^{atia, that the applicant availed loan against mortgage of} the application^{schedule property.Due to failure in repayment as per} agreed terms,^{the account becameNPA on 31'03'2021 as per RBI} guidelines and Securitization^{proceedings havebeen initiatedby} issuing demand^{noticedated 24.11.2022 for Rs'40,62,509/- as on} 2f .77.2022. The^{demand notice has been sent by registeredpost'} published in 'Nava Telangana'^{and 'BusinessStandard'newspapers'} The^{possessionnoticedated 73.02.2023u/s 13(4) was issued} ' published in'Nava Telangana'^{and 'BusinessStandard'newspaperson} 15.02.2023 and^{got affixed on securedasset Though the Tribunal} granted conditional stay,^{applicant failed to complythe same'The} respondent has^{followeddue procedureof law and hence SA is liable} to be dismissed.

¶18

The right of applicant's^{arguments was forfeitedon 11'06 2025} as no representation^{in spite of sufficientopportunity'Perused the} written arguments filed^{by the learned counselfor the respondent} and the material documents^{placedon record.}

¶19

The points for consideration^{are as follows :} -

¶20

i) Whether the appticant^{made out anyvalidground to set} aside the^{possession notice dated13'09.2024 against the} sA schedule^{property under the AcL-2002,as prayed for?}

¶21

ii) ro what retief?

¶22

//X\v<".-<^

¶23

(./ ''

Page 3 of 3

sA No.161/2023

Point No.(i):

As admitted by the applicant, she availed housing loan against mortgage of application schedule property and committed default in repayment. Hence action of respondent in crassifying the account as NPA and initiating securitization proceedings cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. The respondent filed documents along with reply statement as proof of compliance of Secs.13(2), L3(4) of the Act, 2002 read with Rules g(1) and g(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As stated supra. there is no representation for appricant and the documents remained undisputed. The applicant faired to estabrish any varid ground to set aside the possession notice dated t3.02.2023 and accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Point No.(ii):

¶29

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶33

(Typed to my dictotion by the p5, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the 23" doy ol October, 2O2S).

¶34

Y(*sJ"n-a ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt Satyavathi Moktala v. Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Secunderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Satyavathi Moktala v. Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Secunderabad

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

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Venkatesh Palwaya, S/O P Swarajyam