The applicant challenged the respondent's initiation of physical possession proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, alleging improper service of notices. The court found the respondent followed the prescribed procedure regarding demand and possession notices. The application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 201|1 DAY OF MARCH, 2C25
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
SA.No.241/2C23,
Sathya NarayanaGande, S/o Gande Krishna Murthy, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .4-66 I 3 I 2, Athmakur Main road, Opp. Bus Stop, Nalgonda District.
... Applicant
And
IREP Credit Capitalpvt.Ltd. lCl 1-8-382,Sth floor, Queen's plaza SP Road, Begumpet, Sec.bad-5O0 0O3 Rep. by its Authorized officer
... Resporzderut
Counsel for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondent
Sri Hari Prasad Podila Si V. Santoosh.
-:ORDER.-
- This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Acr, 2OO2, challenging the measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 pursuant to the orders of cJM, Bhongir in *6I 2o23consequent to the possession notice d to declare the same as illegal.
Z lihtnfryg"ntsfi-ri{dein the apptication,in brief,are that:
iled loan from the Respondent for doing business by ge in respect of the schedule property. Due to
sA24Ll2023
Pandemic, the Applicant could not pay some loan instalments. But without considering the request of the Applicant for restructure of the loan account, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice dt.04.lO.2O21 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was not served on the Applicant. Thereafter without issuing possession notice under Sectionl3(4)of the Act, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 before Ld.cJM, Bhongir in crl.M.P.No.46/ 2023 without following the due process of law. The impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and the said notice was also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.
Hea and Ld. Counsel for Respondent. by both the parties. for consideration are,?- 0tirB ,l'l75
sA241,12023
Point No.(i):-
sA24112023
sA241./2023
SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking physical possession of the schedule property and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.
Point No.(ti):-
t2. In the result, the present Securittzation Application is dismissed as there are no merits. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
- communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.
(Dictated to the P.S transcibed bg her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced" bg me in the open court on this the 2Ot, dag ofMarch,2025).
sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
ffi
.t
2 0 ilAn 2025
:i r5i
'R,,srE$
TRUE COPY ORT.T, *}M,UTIYOERAl,iliO.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant established valid grounds to challenge the possession proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements of issuing and serving demand and possession notices under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sathya Narayana Gande
IREP Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd.
Gummadi GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
