The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, considered an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the rules regarding service and publication were followed and dismissed the application.
The application was dismissed and interlocutory applications stood disposed of.
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 RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOF MAY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.21A/2C22
AbdullabinMohmmedBaharmous S/o late Mohammed Bin Abdullah Baharmous, Aged 49 years, Occ:business, Baharmous Dairy Farm, !/o. Ilto l8-ll-27lA/27, MumtazBagh, Beside CRPF, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad-5O0 O05.
... Applicant
Versus
ShriramCity Union Finance Ltd.,. Rep. by its Authorized oflicer H..No.3-6-478, Sth floor, Anand Estates, Liberty Road, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-SOO 029.
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Si A. Bhuuan Sunder Reddg Counsel for Respondent : Sri P. Ramachandran
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/s. 17of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the possession Norice di.OS.OB.2O22 issued by the Respondent in respect of ihe schedule propert5z and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicant availed )m the Respondent in the year 2019 and of the schedule property. As the Applicant i lt Altlt8zs bus,t, S, he could not repay $:^-r* W**W
theloanamounts due and so,the Respondentissued demand notice dt.19.o4.2o22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter, the Applicant came to know that possession notice was pubrished in Nava Telangana on 11.08.2022 and subsequently on verification, he found the publication of the possession notice dt. 1 r.og.2o22 but the said possession notice was not served on him. Hence the SA.
;&,
z o rirAy zus I
;
Point JVo.(i):-
Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated
supra.
- To substantiate their contention, the Respondent has filed relevant material documents along with the Rep]y filed by them. As per the said
documents, it) t the Respondentissued possession notice dt.05.08. iac:i!,rcf,q to .:.!,.tihe Applicant through Regd. -o--- postr-"and the icant ffieived rd ..i notrce as evidenced bythepostal acknow eqts nGi uv the pondent. The said possession notice was a ""2&,.il{Y.tffi,,. perty as depicted in the copies of Wffis$
photographs filed by the Respondent and the said notice was als<; published in Nava Telangana and Indian Mail daily newspapersas evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule g( 1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the schedule property and so, the possession notice dt.OS.Og.2O22 issued by the Respondent is perfectly legal and valid.
Potnt No.(tl):-
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed by -her, conected., signed and. pronounced. by me in the open court on this the 2othdag Qf M.gq; 2025).
DRT.I, HYEERAEAD,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the possession notice dated 11.08.2022 issued by the respondent.
Whether the respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdullabin Mohmmed Baharmous
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Gummadigopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
