Dismissed

Pogula Manohar v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

DRT15 Sept 2025SA/22/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad rejected the applicants' challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the recovery respondent's actions. The Court held that the entities had complied with statutory notice requirements and Section 14 procedures before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for physical possession, finding no legal violations warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Relief refused; proceedings under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 initiated by the Respondent are held legal, valid, and non-voidable.

Pogula Manohar versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE I sTH DAYOFSEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.22./2024

¶5

Pogula Manohar,

¶6

S/o Buchaiah, aged 38 years, Occ:employee, R/o H.No.3 I - l-4ol-2, Komatipally, Bheemaram village,

¶7

Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal-5060 1 5.

¶8

Smt. Padma Mankala

¶9

W/o Pogula Manohar,

¶10

aged 34 years,

¶11

Occ:employee, R/o H.No.3 1 - 1 -4Ol-2, Komatipally, Bheemaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal-5060 15

¶12

... Applicants

¶13

And

¶14

l. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd,

¶15

Rep. by its Authorized Officer,

¶16

H.No.9-1-3 to 7 , Jayaprakash Narayan Road, Nandyala Gari Compound, Girmajipet, Warangal-506002

¶17

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, Acting in its capacity as Trustee of EARC TRUST SC 451 Rep. by its Authorized Officer,

¶18

Regd. Office at lst floor, Edelweiss House, Off CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-4OO O98.

¶19

... Respondent s

¶20

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for tle Respondents

¶21

SnA.Vijay Kumar Si G.Prabtnkar Sharma

¶22

This

¶23

This u/s. 17 ofthe SARFAESI Act, the Respondents for taking 2o02, challen$,.e tfeg"gp m""{ property through Advocate physical po":+."r3,, of the ""h.Sl "'"{nh,,^--.^*''i{,jJ/

¶24

commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, warangal in crl.M.P.No.101 123 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶25

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶26

Applicants availed housing loan of Rs.34 lakhs from the Respondents and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. Due to Covid- 19 and financial problems, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and the Respondents issued demand notice and the said notice was not served on the Applicants. After issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the Applicants paid Rs.14 lakhs for regularizing the loan account. But without regtilatizing the loan account and without serving any notice on the Applicants, the Respondents initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.1O1 123 on the file of Ld.CJM, Warangal and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Warangal affixed vacate notice dt.19.12.2023 on the schedule premises. The impugned possession notice was not published in newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. Hence the SA.

¶27

The Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants who are husband and wife, availed home loan from the Edelweiss Housing Finance Ltd. by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA and the loan account of the Applican," ""...?-:_.:r$n-.:9,r: the Respondents herein. The Respondents issued demand.qEti$e dt'flf.qgzo22 u/s 13(2) of the sARFAEST Act, 2oo2 Regd. post and the said notice i: and sent i"-ehi,1iut ^;t&+\through was ".rii.tfo. the-qd'ppli""r,8 fthereafter, the Respondents issued po""""di# notfc{ SP2igS.2o2g flnd the said possession notice was T li ',^'{., i :{ - "'.I^if ',.. ;.... '' '- 't ,'+.r{.- u.ft#t':i{-,r,ii/^, i' i't. '' "n'-")'..1*,,' -,r -" . -,j:;l^{_tf' ':.,:i'}

¶28

served on the Applicants and the same was affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers on 22.05.2023. Even after receipt of the said notice, the Applicants failed to pay the loan dues and so, the Respondents initiated proceedings before the Ld.CJM, Warangal for taking physical possession ofthe schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 20O2. So there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶29

Heard [d. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶30

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶31

i. tuhetler the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground.s for cLnllenging the steps initiated bg tle Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule propertA through aduocate commi.ssioner?

¶32

ii. To ulnt relief?

¶33

Point .l\Io.(if :-

¶34

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶35

There is no displ]gg*Iggarding the fact that the Applicants availed loan from the ,i c ce Ltd. and created mortgage in respect or the sctiei&16 r, the Applicants committed default in repaliffihe

¶36

;. 'l

¶37

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Respondents straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶38

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property /s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶39

10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondents enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued demand notice dt.o7l1.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. post and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondents. when the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice even after receipt of the same, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.22.05.2}25 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and, the said notice was personally received by the 1"t Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the copy of the said notice filed by the Respondents and the said notice was also sent to the Applicants through Regd. post and the same was received by the Applicants. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publica.tlo'n-fiS-d, bV.,$q,{espondents and the said notice was also affixed i' lo. ..'^j 'A,^{-i</sup> "".,e9'#":ali;[i'lid"x."**;;;;;;;"";;;;;;ffi Re$idfritents. Shus the fo\ora.r,t" have duly followed Rule S(l)(2) of t{f$,* I?,S5plE4lf*.*[t Rules, 2002 i., i"".,i.,g possession notice toi-@, Applicants. ,'! \'+t ,,..,';-',;':'⁴ ';:'.,^t}tr=. .. -, .'i'r..,. r'. -:!:Il!.;;r'.'---l '^{:i;"""'"'"'.')} '/}

¶40

As per the provisions of section 14 of sARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, tt,e secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld. CJM, Warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. CJM, Waarangal after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.19.12.2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. The Applicants frled copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by them. So, the said notice dt.Lg.l2.2o23 issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶41

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent on the file of the ld. CJM, warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. so, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicants.

¶42

In as there are no merits.

¶43

14, Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Ddoted to the P.S tro.nseibed ht ha, corrected, signed ond proaowlced. bA me in the open @wt on this the 1S daa of Septenbet, 2025).

¶46

sdl-

¶47

(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

?".;;::,xgir"pi'y

Pogula Manohar v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pogula Manohar v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Vamsi Filling Station versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Alankrutha Fashions

State Bank of India versus M/S. Araala Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hari Hara Putra Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Nindujarla Ashok Kumar