Allowed

Baliram Tungar v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT18 Sept 2025SA/199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's securitization application challenging the respondent's action to take physical possession of property under section 14 of SARFAESI Act due to lack of required notices and reply.

What did the court decide?

The measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner are quashed. The Applicant is granted relief. The Respondent is at libert

Baliram Tungar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE¹ 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.199/2025

¶5

Baliram Tungar S/o Ranga Rao Tungar Aged 48 years, Occ:Govt. employee, R/o H.No. 1-4-125 I 2Al, P.No.45, Sy.No. 197, Adarsh nagar, Manjulapur, Nirmal Town & Dist.

¶6

. .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer, Flat No.201, 2"d floor, Krishe Saphire Near Image Hospital, Madhapur

¶9

Hi Tech City Main Road, Hyderabad.

¶10

Colrnsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶11

... Respondent Si U.Chandra sekhar Exparte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

l. The Applicant frled the present Securitisation Application u/s.¹⁷ of^the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and^Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2l challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking^{physicalpossession} ofthe schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nirmal in Crl.M.P.No.60 125 and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶14

.) The avermen availed ho loan the sch

¶15

tion, in brief, are that, the Applicant t by creating mortgage against committed default in view of

¶16

health problems.^{withoutissuing demand notice and possession notice,} the Respondent^{initiated proceedings u/s 14 ofthe SARFESIAct' 2002} for taking physical^{possession of the schedule propertythrough} advocate commissioner^{without following due process of law' The} impugned possession notice^{was neitherpublished intwo daily} newspapers nor affixed^{on the scheduleproperty.Hence the SA'}

¶17

¶18

Notice served to the^{Respondent, no representationand set exparte'}

¶19

¶20

Heard Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant.}

¶21

Now the points that^{arise for considerationis}

¶22

il Wwttar the Appticant^{has establishedany ualid groundsfor} chaltenging the^{measuresinitiated bg the Respondent} for^taking physical possession of tle^{scledule propertg?}

¶23

iil To tuhat relief?

¶24

Polnt No.(l)

¶25

The Applicant Iiled^{the present SA challenging the impugnedmeasures} initiated by the^{Respondent for taking physicalpossessionof the} schedule property through^{advocate commissioneru/ s14 of the} SARPAESIAct,2OO2.But,theRespondentwhoinvokedtheSARFAESI proceedingsagainstthescheduleproperty,failedtojustifytheiraction by filing Reply and^{by producingnecessarymaterial documentsto prove} thattheRespondenthasstrictlyfollowedtheprovisionsofSARFAESI thereunder in taking^{physical possession of the} Respondent has not^{evinced any interest in} and remained exparte.^{So, it canbe inferredthat} disputing the version^{of the Applicant.In the} evidence to show that the^{Respondent has duly}

¶26

complied^{with the mandatedprovisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules'} 2OO2^{in'proceedingu/s 14 of the Act' I hold that the Applicanthas} made a^{case for quashing the measuresinitiated by the Respondent} against^{the SA.schedule property underthe provisionsof the SARFAESI} Act and^{Rules thereunder and as such' the SA is liable to be allowed'}

¶27

Polnt^No.lll):'

¶28

In the result,^{SA lggl25is allowed' Accordingly'the impugned} measures^{initiatedby the Respondentfor taking physicalpossession of} the schedule^{propertythrough advocate commissionerpursuantto the} orders of^{Ld.CJM,Nirmal in Crl'M'P'No '60 12025 are hereby quashed'} However,^{the Respondentis at libertyto proceed afresh against the SA} schedule^{propertyto recover their dues by duly following the provisions} of SARFAESI^{Acl,2OO2and Rules made thereunder'}

¶29

The^{Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, sha* stand disposed of'} No order^{as to costs'}

¶30

g. Communicate a copy^{of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶31

tDictated to^{the priuate secretarg,transcibed bg her,con-ected, signed and pronouncedbg me} 'r?'iii'2i." ""i^{on"iii"'n.- 18'i daaof september' 202sL}

¶32

/r;ffi<br>i;: 10 sEP 26 :
\kb,.'"#

¶33

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶34

TRUE CSP}
*eclP'.t
Asst. RY.,iLsrr t Il 14
oPr. t. ,.1 ,,,i i.,.,.14.oY'
3

Baliram Tungar v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Tungar v. LIC 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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mana Telangana Mart

State Bank of India versus Ss Paper Plates

Paruchuri Vidya Sagar versus Dcb Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Enterprise

Amit Bajaj and another versus Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd.

B Kalavathi and Others versus Canara Bank