Dismissed

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT9 Jun 2025SA/230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court found that the respondent followed all mandatory procedures regarding NPA classification, demand notice issuance, and subsequent possession notice service, including valid methods of publication and affixation.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to declare the possession notice illegal and arbitrary was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -_ 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 9I^H DAY OF JUNE, 2C^25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.230/2C^23

¶4

Mrs.SangatiSwaroopa W/o late SangatiBhaskar Aged 45 years, Occ:household, R/o H.No .2-I-9O3, Nalmnagar, Vidyaranyapuri, I-l anamkc>nda, Warangal-506009.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer Lldelweiss House, Off CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098. ... Respondent

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri D.Raghauulu Couruselfor Resporudent : Sri G.Prabhakar SharmaSri G.Prabhakar SharmaG.Prabhakar Sharma

¶10

: Sri G.Prabhakar SharmaSri G.Prabhakar SharmaG.Prabhakar Sharma

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of I,'inancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2002) challenging the Possession Notice dt.22.O5.2023 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and to dcclare thc samc as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The averments madc by the Applicant in brief are as follows: The husband of thc: M r. SangatiB haskaravailed housing loan from year 2Ol7 and created mortgage in respect thereafter he died on 01 .06.202 1 due to -bould^{not repay the loan} amount and the R t declared the account as NPA without following the RBI gui any demand notice and

¶14

sA230/23

¶15

possession notice under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2,

¶16

theRespondent is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property. when the Appricant approached the Respondent, they have given copy of the possession notice on 20.06.2023 and the said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule propert5r. Hence the SA.

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant and her husband availed mortgage loan from the Respondent against the security of the schedule property. Thereafter, the Appricant and her husband committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA and a dcmand notice d.1.22.rr,2022 u/s 13(2) of the Act, 'ARFAESI 2002was issued to the Applicant but the said notice was returned unserved so, the said demand notice was published in Business standard and Nava Telangana daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed at the address of the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.22.o5.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Act, 2002 and, the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there are no viorations. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA. Heard Ld' counser for the Appricant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record. Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

whether the Applicant has estabrished. ana uarid ground.s fo, Notice d"t.22.0s.202s issued bs the iglmssion hedute ProPerts? ,, rffiffiffi\ Point,ry.(i):0 i rft g JUI{ Zffi r.r" ii ' r\d- -r t$&**-*&&

¶22

sA230/23

¶23

During the course of arguments, Ld. counser for the Appricant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶24

There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe Applicant and her husband availed housing roan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r to secure the said loan. Thereafter, the husband of the Applicant by name S.Bhaskar died and the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without issuing any demand notice and possession notice, trying to dispossess the Applicant from the schedule property.

¶26

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have dury 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.

¶27

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed reievant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classi$zing the loan account as NpA, the Respondent issued demand notice dL.22.11.2022 uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post. As the said notice was retuned unserved, the Respondent published the said demand notice in Business Standard and Nava Teiangana daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liied by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed at the address of the Applicant as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the R Thus, there is valid seryice of demand notice on the Respondent issued Possession notice was sent to the Applicant through f,i."".$g; "T, Regd. as evidd?iced by receipts filed by the Respondent. The po&ut"r6ll{ ffi." published in two daily newspapers as publication filed by the Respondent and

¶28

¶29

sA 230/23

¶30

the said notice was also affixed on the schedure propert5r as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously forowed Rure g(1)&(2) of Securit,r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶31

1 1' Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Acr, 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.

¶32

Potnt No,(fi)r

¶33

In the result, SA 2BO I 2023 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(actuted to the P.s, transcribed ba^her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 9thday of June, 2025).

¶36

sd/(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFF'ICER

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Gssmr Energy Private Limited versus Union Bank of India

Sousheel versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Mergu Yellappa versus Punjab National Bank

Rajasekhar Kotte versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Sri Kashpe Srinivas versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.