Allowed

Kongesi Maddilety v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Drt application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act was allowed by the Tribunal. The applicant sought to set aside a possession notice dated 04.02.2025, alleging procedural lapses by the respondent in following Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act and Rule 8(2). Since the respondent was ex parte, the applicant's contentions remained unchallenged, leading to the setting aside of the notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 04.02.2025 issued against the schedule property.

Kongesi Maddilety versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization Application No. 199 0F 202 5

¶4

Mr. Kongise Maddilety S/o. K. Pedda Tirupal Gender Male, Aged about 50 Years R/o. H.No.10-849 (New) 16-67/B(Old) Nandikatkur Village and Madal, Kurnool.

¶5

........ Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

TATA Capital Housing Finance Llmited., Rep by its Authorised Officer situated at Plot No.3, 4, 5 & 6, Road No.6 Auto Toll Plaza, Opp. Times of India Banja ra Hills - 500034.

¶8

....... Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Mr. D. Raghavulu Respondent Ex parte

¶10

Mr. D. Raghavulu

¶11

-:.o_B_qEB_:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the Securitlsation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 C'Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside the possession notice dated O4.O2.2O25 issued under Sec.13(4) agalnst the petition schedule property and without following due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, as Null and void, illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed housing loans from the respondent. Due to some unforeseen problems during COVID 19 pandemic sltuation the applicant's business suffered huge loss. Respondent proceeded to issue Sec.13(4) notice against the schedule property. Demand notice, possession notice were not served, the /h*r.,.s /-/ '<:...-'.s''

2ot2

sA 199/202s

possession notice was not affixed and^{publishedas per Rules.The} respondent bank failed^{to followthe procedures contemplatedunder secs} I3(2), t3(4) of the^{Act and Rules B(1) & 8(2) of the Security Interest} (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence this SA.

¶18

The respondent^{bank was set ex parte on 16.07.2025 as called} absent and no representation^{despite serviceof notice.}

¶19

Heard the Learned counsel for applicant'^{Perused the material} brought on record.

¶20

5, It is the contention^{of applicantthat the respondent failedto follow} secs.13(2) and 13(4)^{of the Act. As stated supra,respondent remained} ex parte to the sA^{proceedings and hence no materialis availableas} proof of compliance of^procedure of law.^{Under such circumstances, the} contentions of applicant^{remain unchallengedand accordinglySA} deserves to be allowed.

¶21

In the result, the^{SA is allowed by setting aside the possession} notice dated 04.02.2025^{in respect of SA scheduleproperty.}

¶22

Consequently, interlocutory^{applicationspending, if any, shall} stand disposed of.^{No orderas to costs'Communicatea copy of this} order to the^{parties concernedand upload in the website.}

¶23

(Typed to my dictation by the PS,^{corrected, signed and pronouncedby me in the opencourt on} this the 23'd daY of October,^2025).

¶24

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kongesi Maddilety v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kongesi Maddilety v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

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