Dismissed

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another v. Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

DRT4 Sept 2025SA/23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal Bench disposed of an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the issuance of a possession notice and subsequent proceedings for taking physical possession through an advocate commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the Debts Recovery process, finding no violation of procedural rules.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal (SA) 23/2024 was dismissed as there were no merits. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another versus Aadhar Housing… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4fH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.23/2024

¶5

Saraswati Upender Raju, S/o Swamy S., aged 38 years, Occ:pvt.service, Rlo 12-87 , Gouds Khanapur(V), Nizamabad-503003.

¶6

Smt.Saraswati Anitha Rani, W/o S. Upender Raju, Occ:House wife, R/o 12-87, Gouds Khanapur(V), Nizamabad-5O3OO3

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

Aadhar Housing F'inance Ltd., Premises No.201, 2nd floor, H.No.5-6-29O, Ward No.5, Block No.6, Hyd.Road, Saraswati Nagar, Nizamabad-503001.

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶13

Si K.Kranthi kumar Si Dhannender Prasad

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Possession Notice dt.O4.01.2024 and also the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property th 1\dvocate^{cominissionerpursuant} to the orders of Ld.CJM, of Ld.CJM, Ld.CJM, UA rl.M.P.No.528 l24 and to declare the

¶16

orders of Ld.CJM, of Ld.CJM, Ld.CJM, UA

¶17

same as illesala*) vo

¶18

The ave

¶19

, in brief, are that:
i -.g.qJEf.a6,,.,6;
irf:fiY

¶20

Applicant No.1 availed loan from the Respondent whereas the Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. Due to ill health and market fluctuations, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and so, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA. The Respondent without issuing demand notice to the Applicants, straightaway, issued the impugned possession notice dt.04.0I.2024 and the said notice was not published in newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. During the pendency of the SA, the Respondent 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.528l24 on the file of Ld.CJM, Nizamabad and so, the said proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. Hence the SA.

¶21

J. The I?espondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the 1st Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA on Ol.O4.2O2t and accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.16.o4.2021 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the same was returned unserved and so, the Respondent published the said notice in Indian Express and Andhra Prabha daily newspapers on 13.05.2021. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.o4.0L.2o24 and the said notice was served on the Applicants and the said possession notice was aflixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers. So there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

4, I Ieard the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Res e material brought on record. ,TF 5. the potrn(qiffiffirise t nsideration are

¶23

uhether the Applicants haue established any ualid. grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt,O1.O4.2024 ond also the steps initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertA through aduocate commissioner?

¶24

ii. To tthat relief ?

¶25

Point No.(i):-

¶26

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

¶27

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appiicant No. 1 availed loan from the Respondent whereas the Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r and thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶28

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice, the Respondent straightaway issued possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, thre Respondent 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.

¶29

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the under thc provisions of SAIIFAESI Act, 2OO2 and in issuing all the statutory notices to the

¶30

also g srcps u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for f tl-rc schcdulc property. 3

¶31

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed the relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.16.04.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARF'AESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the said notice was retuned as refused and so there is deemed service of demand notice on the Applicants. In fact, the Respondent also published the said demand notice in English and Telugu daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent . issued possession notice dt.04.01.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the same was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal receipts filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copics of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1X2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.

¶32

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the 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 Respondent approached Ld. CJM, Nizamabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. CJM, Nizamabad after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocater visited the schedule property and issued notice dt,.24. licants for vacating the schedule property. said notice along with the SA filed by rhe Appticahts file&e ""ilf}\hn. them., So, the4pqidqptice is"Ga iby the advocate commissioner for taking pny "^ii3$, " ":=^{,,Jttr ?ffi ,. n$;1 *} property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶33

¶34

L2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld. CJM, Nizamabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the

¶35

' 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 Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedulc property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶36

Point No.(ii):-

¶37

In the result, SA 23/2024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 4th of September, 2025).

¶41

i6rm
t; \L o I srp 206 :I,t
';:fu;;,..flSf,"

¶42

sdl - (G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

on?-1,,v^{.vn";f, ri 8it'9}

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another v. Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another v. Aadhar 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

Vaddalapu Rammohan versus State Bank of India

S Jayaram Chowdary versus State Bank of India

M Latha versus State Bank of India

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav