Dismissed

Amit Bajaj v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

DRT1 Aug 2025SA/225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a secured asset reconstruction application challenging a possession notice, the Tribunal held that the Respondent strictly followed the SARFAESI Act and Rules regarding demand and possession notices through service, publication, and affixation. The challenge failed as no procedural violation was established.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to challenge the possession notice dated 19.05.2023 is dismissed as there are no merits.

Amit Bajaj versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL * I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 STDAY OF AUGUST.2C.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.225/2c23

¶4

Amit Balaj, S/o Ram Kishore Bajaj, Aged 42 years, R/o S-9-3Olt/31, F.No.2 1, SriNiketanApartmnets, Road J.,1o.2, Basheerbagh, palace colony, Near Hope Hospital, Hyderabad-SOO 063. ... Applicant

¶5

Tersus

¶6

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance (ErstDewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.), Rep. by its Authorized officer D.No.7- 1 -6 1 5,616&617 I A, Imperial Towers,4th floor, Ameerpet main road, Hyderabad-SOo 016. ... Respondent bank Counsel for tlrc Applicant : Si D. Raghauulu Counselfor tLrc Respondent : Smt.P.S. Sujata

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This Application is filed u/s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, chalenging the Possession Notice dt. 19.05.2023 issued by theRespondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegar and arbitrarv.

¶9

The ayfuefltiirrcite by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶10

.i r"' ' :i. ficant availed houding,r loan lrom the Respondent and created property in security to the said ,$s.sdl t,ltffiffifi "r jili ".n.0,,. il,. I)uc lrr 1,,u14 lu lranrl.mir, rlrr. Applicant could not pay some ., ]

¶11

instalments and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFASI Act,2OO2. But the Respondent failed to issue demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the impugned possession notice was neither published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶12

J. The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse alregations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant as Director of M/s Anusha Interiors and projects p.Ltd., availed housing loan from the Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. which was later acquired by the Respondent herein. As the Applicant Iiled to repay the loan dues, the loan account was declared as NpA on 0g.l 1.2022 and, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.30.O 1.2023u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002and the said notice was received by the Appricant and the said notice was also pubrished in two daily newspapers.. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 19. 05.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant by Regd. Post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus the Respondent has strictly foll0wed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶13

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶14

points that arise for consideration are :=:==\

¶15

i. whbther the has established ang ualid ground.s for

¶16

ehallengin!7 the ion Notice dt. i 9.05.2023 issued. bg the netrtofQent dgqinst schedule propertg?

¶17

¶18

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶19

Polnt.ilIo.lil:-

¶20

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Id. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶21

There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe Applicant availed loan from the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. which was later acquired by the Respondent herein and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan dues..

¶22

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the impugned demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant and the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and not affixed on the schedule property and so, the said possession notice is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶23

Per contra, Respondentcontended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice to the Applicant.

¶24

In order to substantiate their contention, theRespondent filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.30.01.2023.,1;-/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 callirrg upon the Applictrrt'. to. pay-,:gl.-'r.-qntire outstanding dues and sent the said notice to ,i

¶25

the A ppliclplic an ! throt.-tf,.ori$fuga. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by tr,i:'H""poni*t$rrre sala demand notice was also published in

¶26

+i!

¶27

¶28

Telugu and English daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 19.05.2023and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication hled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8( i )&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶29

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶30

Polnt No.(ii)r

¶31

In the result, SA 2251 2023 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

l3.Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, coftected., signed. and. pronounced bA me in the open court onthis the ldday of August, 2025).

¶34

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OF.T'ICER

¶35

.l . : . ,-=-
. . ,,l1

Amit Bajaj v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Bajaj v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Private Limited

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Devunuri Ashok

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited

M S Indiramma Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Mrs C Jyothi versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited