In SA. No. 197/2022 before the DRT-1, Hyderabad, the Applicant challenged a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, claiming the outstanding dues were less than 20%. The court held the notice was legal based on documentary evidence regarding rescheduled loans and proper service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE ZO-IH DAY OF JANUARY, 2C,25
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No. 197 /ZOZ2
Sri TangallapallyGnaneshwar, S/o Laxmaiah, aged 46 years, Occ:business, R/o Flat No.303, 3.d floor, Sindhu Residency, Prashanth Nagar G Siddipet, Medak District-502 1 03.
... Applicant
Versus
Piramal Capital & Flousing Finance, Rep. by its Authorized Officer (formerly known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.), Unit No.601, 6th floor, Amit Building, Agastya Corporation park, Kamani Junction, Opp.Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla(West), Mumbai_400 070
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant ; Sn D. Raghatrulu Counselfor Respondent : Smt. P.S. Sujata
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SAIfl.-AIlSt Act, 2OO2) action of the Respondent in issuing Possession N
respect of the schedule 'ffi property and to d arbitrary.
sA 197 /2022
The Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent in the year 2oo7 and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said roan. Due to covid-l9, the Appricant could not pay some instalments and so, the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA and without issuing any demand notice, straightaway issued Possession Notice dt.19.07. 2022 in respect of the schedule property. The said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property as prescribed under Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2. TheApplicant discharged more than 80%o of the outstanding loan amount and so, the Respondent is not entitled to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 as the outstanding due payable is less than 2oo/o. Hence the SA.
The Respondent filed their l?eply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed housing loan from M/s Dewan Housing Finance corporation Ltd.(DHFL) and the same had been merged with the Respondent, Mls piramal capital and I{ousing Fiance Ltd. vide order dt.07.06.2o2r passed by Hon,ble NCLT, Mumbai.. In view of the re-scheduling of loan, the loan is repayable up to o1.o2.2o30 and the term of the roan got extended from 1g0 to 271 EMIs' So, the loan account of the Applicant was classified as NpA in view of the default committed by the Applicant and the Respondent issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 1g.01 .2022 calling upon the Applicant to repay the entire outstanding dues and the said notice was sent through regd. post and the same was received by the Applicant. As the Appricant failed to repay the loan amount as demanded within 60 days, the Respondent issued possession Notice u/s t3(4) of the the said notice was received by the in Nava Telangana and Financial affixed on the schedule property. The future 31.12.2022 is more than 2Oo/o and hen to the Applicant's account. The procedure contemplated under the
future hen
sAL9712022
provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice against the schedule property and there are no violations. AccordinglyRespondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
ii. To what relief ?
Point No.(i):-
During the course of argumcnts, l,d. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as statecl supra.
sA79712022
- In order to substantiate that the principal amount payable by the Applicant as on the date of issuing demand notice u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 is more than 2Ooh, the Respondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them and as per the said documents, it is clear that loan of the Applicant was rescheduled in view of the change in interest rate and by the date of initiating proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, the principal amount payable is more than 2ooh of the total amount due. So, the contention of the Applicant that the outstanding amount due is less than 2Oo/o is not tenable.
sA 19712022
issuing Demand notice dt. l g.0 t.2022 and possession notice dt.19.07.2022. So, the said possession notice is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.
Point No.(ii):-
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed" bg her, corrected, signed. and pronounced by me in the open court ort this the 2othdaA of January, 2025).
sd/(G. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 I " 1","1r-{
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established a valid ground for challenging the Possession Notice issued by the Respondent.
Whether the principal amount due as on the date of issuing the demand notice under SARFAESI Act is less than 20% of the total amount due.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar
Piramal Capital & Housing Finance
Gummad_i_Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
