Dismissed

Kothakonda Saritha v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DRT29 May 2025SA/238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This respondent application under the SARFAESI Act challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent duly followed statutory procedures including service of demand notice and publication, and there were no violations.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession notice was dismissed as there were no merits to the case.

Kothakonda Saritha versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL -1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 29TH DAYOF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.238/2023

¶5

Smt. KothakondaSaritha, W/ o KothakondaRajendra Kumar, Aged 46 years, Occ:house wife, R/o Villa No.61, Splendid Aparna Palm Meadows, Kompally-SO0 0100 Secunderabad

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sriram Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized signatory R.Nani Reddy D.No.3-6-629,4ft floor, Bhupal Reddy Complex, Street No.8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-SOO 029. . .. Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri SujitluJaiswal Counsel for Respondent : Si M.Indrasen

¶10

ORDER

¶11

1 . 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 Notice dt.14.06.2023 issued by the Respondent in respect of the schedule^property and to declare the d arbitrary.

¶12

The a t in brief are as follows:

¶13

29 iltYzffi *
?
,,,.,

¶14

sA238123

¶15

The husband of the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent whereas the Applicant stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Even though, the Applicant andher husband were regularly repaying the loan amounts, the Respondent declared the loan account as NpA and without issuing any demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 , straightaway issued the impugned possession notice dt. 14.06.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2002. The Respondent is also trying to take physicar possession of the schedure property without forowing the due process of law. Hence the sA.

¶16

¶17

¶18

The Respondent filed their Repry denying all the adverse alregations made in the SA and contended that after availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicant and her husband failed to repay the loan dues and so, the loan account was classilled as NpA. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O8.O8.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2and the said notice was received by the Applicant and the said notice was also pubrished in two daily newspapers. As the borrower and the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.14.06.2023 u/s l3(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r and it was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the sA. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

i. whether the Appticant has established ang ualid ground.s for challenging the possessio n Notice d.t.14.06.2023 issued bg the Respondent

¶21

ii. To uhat

¶22

Polnt No.lil:?'s l'lr'

¶23

sA238/23

¶24

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

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are that the husband of the Applicant availed housing ioan from the Respondent and the Applicant herein stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. Thereafter, the borrower and the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without issuing any demand notice, straightaway issued theimpugned Possession notice dt. 14.06.2023 and so, the said possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶27

B. Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuingdemand notice and possession notice.

¶28

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondentfiled relevant material documents aiongwith the Reply filed by them. As per the said

¶29

documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice

¶30

dt.O8.O8.2O22 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and othersthrough regd. post to the correct address. But Applicant got returned the said notice with endorsement 'addressee left, so the Respondent published the said demand notice in Nava Telangana and Indian Mail daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.14.06.2023 and admittedly, the Appticant received the said n The said possession notice was published in Indian Mail daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the Respondent and the said notice was also as depicted in the photographs

¶31

2 I^{r1',, -r,',.q}

¶32

sA 238/23

¶33

liled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant and others.

¶34

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 thereunderin issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and othersand there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondentand against the Applicant.

¶35

Potnt No.(tl)t

¶36

In the result, SA 238 /2023 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37