Dismissed

Kiran Kumar Kondaru v. Hdfc Bank

DRT10 Sept 2025SA/181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed a Securitization Application under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside dispossession and enforce possession. The court observed that statutory notices were served and published, justifying the appointment of an advocate commissioner. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications pending stand closed.

Kiran Kumar Kondaru versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE lOTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.181 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Kiran Kumar Kondaru Occ:Design Engineer, Aged 45 years Flat No.203, 1st Floor, Aditya Sunshine Block-B S. No.14P of Izza&Nagar & S.No.57P oF Kondapur Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. 500017

¶6

Also at: #1625 Denton CT, Folsom, Caligornia usA 95630

¶7

Also at: Flat No.107, S S Height Apartment H. No.12- 13-705/8 ST No.13 Gokulnaga r, Tarnaka, Secunderabad- 17

¶8

Also at:

¶9

Design Engineer, VPG GFX Engineering Department Intel Corporation 1900, Prairie City RD, Folsom California City USA.

¶10

2.lvlr. Ram Naresh (POA of Klran Kumar Kondaru) Flat No.107, S S Height Apartment H. No.12- 13-705/8 ST No.13 Gokulnagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-17

¶11

.......Applicants.

¶12

Versus

¶13

HDFC Ltd Rep by its Authorized Officer HDFC House,3-6-310, Hyderg uda Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-29

¶14

... ResPondent

¶15

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj Counsel for Respondent : Mr. B. Ravindra Reddy '^)rrn" -, .- '-.q'r ' \q '"

PaBe 2 of4

sA No.18v2024

-:g-B-D-E-R:-

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitlzation^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of^{Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as} "the Act") to set aside^{the measures lnitiated by the respondent} including dispossession^{of the applicant from the applicationschedule} property vide Warrant^{issuedin Crl.MP No'543 of 2023 by learned} CMM, Ranga^{Reddy Dist.}

¶20

The case of the^{applicant, in brief, is that he availed housing} loan of Rs.50^{lakhs from respondent in 2012 against mortgageof SA} schedule^{property as security' Though the borrowerhad been} repaying the loan^{amount regularly, due to severalclrcumstances} including Pandemic^{and loss of job caused default in payment of some} instalments. Without^{servingany statutorynotices,the respondent} took action for taking^{physicalpossessionof the property'There is} violation of Secs.13(2)^{and 13(4)of the Act, 2002 and Rules8(1)and} 8(2) of the Security^{Interest(Enforcement) Rules,2002 ("Rules"} hereinafter). Hence^{the SA.}

¶21

The respondent^{bank filed repty statementalongwith} documents. The^{submissions, in brief, are that the due to defaultthe} account of borrower^{came to be classifiedas NPA in accordance with} RBI^guidelines. After^{issuing a loan recall notice dated 03 03 2023,} demand notice u/s^{13(2) was issuedon 13.03.2023and publishedin} English and Telugu^{newspaperson 28.03.2023.Afterexpiry of 60} days from demand^{notice,respondentto symbollc possessionof the} property on 28.o7.zo?3,^published the^{possessionnotice besides} sending the same to^{the applicantand its affixture on the asset'} Thereafter, respondent^{approached learnedCMM for appointment of} advocate commissioner for^{taki^qphysical possession of the secured} ow.*

¶22

page 3 of4

¶23

SA No.18U2024

¶24

asset. The respondent has followed the procedure diligently and the SA is liable to be dismlssed.

¶25

Representative of learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶26

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent while referring to the documents annexed to the reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure/ sought for dismissal of the SA.

¶27

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶28

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash any measures of the respondent including taking physical possession of the application schedule property as prayed for?

¶29

ii) To what relieq

¶30

Point No,(i):

¶31

It appears from the application that the 1"t applicant-borrower is represented by the 2nd applicant as his Power of Attorney Holder. Admittedly the application schedule^property is the secured asset of the respondent in respect of housing loan of Rs.50 lakhs and there was default in payment of instalments due to various reasons. Hence NPA classification cannot be^questioned. It also appears from the record that the respondent sent the statutory notices to the applicant's address in India and also through e-mail. Demand^notice and possession notice were^published and the^{possesslonnotice was} also affixed on the secured asset.^Hence the contention^{of non-} service of notices cannot be acceprcd/Ws

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

sA No.181/2024

¶34

The respondent being^{securedcreditoris entitled to proceed} under Sec.14 of^{the Act, 2002 seekingappointment of advocate} commissioner to take^{physicalpossessionof the securedasset.Hence} such action is neither^{illegal nor irregular.}

¶35

The applicant has utterly^{failed to make out any valid ground to} set aside any of the^{measure of the respondent under the Act, 2002} against the application^{schedule property. AccordinglysA is liable to} be dismissed.

¶36

Point No.(ii):

¶37

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶38

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed. No order as to^{costs. Communicatea copy of this order} to the^parties concerned^{and upload in the official website.}

¶39

(Typed to my dictdtion by the P5, corrected, signed ond^pronounced by^{me in the opencourt on this} the lf doy of september, 2025).

¶40

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kiran Kumar Kondaru v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Kumar Kondaru v. Hdfc Bank

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Laxmi Durga Wines

Canara Bank versus Ganapathiraju Praneel Varma

Canara Bank versus Boya Moolinti Parvathamma

Bank of India versus M/S. Power Line Systems

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Standard Mobiles

Chand Pasha versus M/s.Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co.Ltd