Dismissed

Sri Narender Reddy Soma v. Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT17 Feb 2025SA/188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application challenging possession measures under the SARFAESI Act. The court found the secured creditor duly served demand and possession notices, affixed them to the property, and published them, finding no fault with these procedural steps to warrant quashing.

What did the court decide?

SA No.188/2023 dismissed; interlocutory applications, if any, closed; no order as to costs.

Sri Narender Reddy Soma versus Piramal Capital Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.188 OF²⁰²³

¶5

Sri Narender Reddy Soma S/o Ram Reddy Gender: Male, Occ: Business R/o Flat No.102, First Floor, R.K. Sheetal Co. Plot No.56 HIG, Tanashannagar, Pokkalwad Manikonda GP, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District Telangana - 500089

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd Rep by its Authorized Officer Situated at D.No.7-1-615, 616 &⁶¹⁷ lA Imperial Towers, 4th Floor, Units : 1,2 & B Ameerpet Main Road, Hyderabad-500016

¶9

... .Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant :^{Mr. D. Raghavulu} Counsel for Respondent :^{Mrs.P.S. Sujatha}

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation^{Applicationu/s t7} of the Securitization and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(hereinafterreferredto as} "the Act") to set aside all the measures of respondent^under Sec.13(4) of the Act including the^{proposedaction to take physical} possession of the SA schedule property pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 04.04.2023^{issued in executionof Warrant} ,lrtrl^. .; ' * ,.-r. )': '--

¶13

Page 2 of5

¶14

sA No.188/2023

¶15

issued by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad in Crl I.1P No.95 of 2023.

¶16

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that after availing housing loan of Rs.27 lakhs from the respondent during 2014-15 against mortgage of SA schedule pr operty, he could not pay some instalments due to losses in business and Covid-19 pandemic. Despite substantial payments, respondent initiated Securitization proceedings. Without serving demand notice, possession notice and without aFfixing and publishing the possession notice, the respondent initiated action under Sec.14 of the Act to take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence this SA to set aside all the measuTes taken by the respondent against the property.

¶17

The respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The averments briefly, are that the SA filed on 77.04.2023 challenging the possession notice dated 10.10.2022 is barred by limitation. However, the respondent served the demand notice and possession notice on the applicant and the possession notice was affixed and published in two newspapers. Thereafter obtained orders in Crl MP No.95/2023 for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules of 2002 in proceeding against the secured asset for realization of dues which is public money. Therefore, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed basing on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent, perused the written argument filed by her and the material documents brought on record by both parties, v..*

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

SA No.188/2023

¶21

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent reiterated the version as in reply statement that due to default committed by the applicant in payment of housing loan instalments, it became NPA followed by measures under the SARFAESI Act. The SA is filed challenging the Section 14 proceedings in Crl. MP No.95/2023. Due to interim order passed in this SA, the warrant could not be executed thereby the warrant expired and thus the SA is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶22

It is further contended by the learned counsel that the SA is liable to be dismissed as time barred in respect of challenge on possession notice. Learned counsel would also contend that the respondent however, duly followed the procedure contemplated under the Act while serving the demand notice and serving, affixing and publishing the possession notice. With these contentions, learned counsel sought for dlsmissal of the SA with exemplary costs.

¶23

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶24

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

B. Admittedly, the applicant availed housing loan of Rs.27 lakhs against mortgage of application schedule property and committed default in payment of instalments. The respondent initiated Securitlzation proceedings against the secured asset. The respondent filed documents along with reply statement as proof of sending the demand notice to two different addresses of the applicant one of ''1"svl -..yt, '- -t'-

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

SA No.188/2023

¶30

which is same as in the cause title and happens to be the^residential address of the applicant^qua the^{application scheduleproperty.The} item was not delivered and returned with^{postal remarks'addressee} moved'. Possession notice was also sent to both addresses of^the applicant. It would be the bounden duty of the borrower to^{leave the} correct contact address with the secured creditor^{while subsequently} moving out from the given address at the time of sanction of^loan. However, the co-borrower/guarantor^received the^{possession notice} at Mahabubabad vide^postal acknowledgement.^{The possession notice} was also affixed on the secured asset which is the address of the applicant as^per cause title. When the secured asset and^residenceof the applicant are one and the same, on affixture of^{possession notlce} applicant would have^gained knowledge of the same and^he should have challenged the possession notice without waiting for further action of the respondent against the^property. The applicant did^not acl bonafidely and he cannot be^permitted now to aver that no notices were served on him. The^possession notice was^published in English and Telugu newspapers. In view of the observation, I do not find any fault with the action of the respondent with regard to service of demand notice and^possession notice, its affixture and^publication.

¶31

As reported by the learned counsel for respondent, the date of waTrant in Crl MP No.95 of 2023 had already expired. However, the respondent being secured creditor is entitled to approach learned CMI\4/Dlvl under Sec.14 of the Act for appropriate orders for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Such action cannot be found fa u lty.

¶32

In view of the above observations, I find that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures ffi$s

¶33

Page 5 of 5

¶34

SA No.188/2023

¶35

of the respondent against the SA schedule property and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Point No.(ii):

¶37

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

¶38

12, Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 77th doy of Februory,2025).

¶41

,.ffiourt* (RAI{TESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Narender Reddy Soma v. Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narender Reddy Soma v. Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Golkonda Venugopal

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S K.K.R Transport

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Maragoni Narsihma

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S Tribal Mantra India Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Budigapaka Sekhar

Canara Bank versus Uppari Narsing Rao