Dismissed

Jithender Nagabelly v. Sriram finance limited

DRT25 Nov 2025SA/242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 17 application under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged a possession notice for failing to follow statutory procedures. The Tribunal found the secured creditor duly served demand and possession notices and published the latter in newspapers as per rules. Upholding the creditor's actions, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; no relief granted to the applicant.

Jithender Nagabelly versus Sriram finance limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.242/2024

¶5

sri Jithender Nagabelly, S/o Satya Dev, aged 50 years, Occ:private employee, R/o H.No.50-1-96, Near Sarali Abyasana Kendram High School, Arepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal (D)-506006

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Regd. Offrce at Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶9

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant SiAkkapaka Snniuas Counsel for the Respondent Si N.RagLaueer Reserued on 16.10.2025 Pronounced on 21.1 1 .2025 Uploaded on 25.11.2025

¶12

:ORDER:-

¶13

..".L' This application is liled by the Applicant^{u/s. 17 of the SARFAESIAct,} ' ' ^^^^^.;..'.\ 2002.'c the Possession Notice dt. 10.11.2023 and also the :. ,' , : ,p.o"..aif,gs)ihitiied^{by the Respondentfor taking physicalpossession} il^;= ? i^{N?lltt4t"h.ilfbproperty through Advocatecommissionerpursuant to} I.-1^' the ordegoiin-fCrl.M.P.No.06/24 on the file of Ld.CJM, Warangal^and 1.r':^, ,^{: t'} ...:'i: li i..i',4'.=,-.lo^{d?.ala#same as illegal and void'}

¶14

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶15

The Applicant was running a private school in the schedule property and availed loan of Rs.45 lakhs from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. The Respondent without serving demand notice, issued possession notice to the Appticant and the said possession notice dt. 1O. 1 1.2023 was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Without following Rule 8(1)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property, the Respondent is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 through advocate commissioner and so the said proceedings are not legal. Hence the SA.

¶16

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against the schedule property. After availing loan from the Respondent, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA. The Respondent issued demand notice dt.09.O5.2O23 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and also possession notice dt. 10.1L.2O23 to the Applicant by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFASI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule propertSr through advocate commissioner. So, there are no violations and accordingly;lfhe Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA. .,t \r.

¶17

for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the

¶18

perused the material brought on record.

¶19

that arise for consideration are

¶20

¶21

wtether the Applicant has establi,shed ang ualid grounds for chnllenging the Possession Notice dt. 10. 1 1.2023 and also the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phAsical possession of tLrc schedule propertA through aduocate ammissioner?

¶22

ii. To uhat relief?

¶23

Polnt No.(i):-

¶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

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is ttrat without serving demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule^property nor published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the 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.

¶27

' ':ll-l-:1--:" " .... .,.,:ri;r,-::., ,^.:l:.- .'; .^='g. Per contiar'; ':' 1, .'1itqspondent contended that they have duly followed the :.: i::..' ;,^'' procedUre laid rilown under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and ti 'k r'i !'. I^' Rules made the&under in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant ii -. ': -{, ,r^,i. .t.^{and also in initiating steps for taking physicalpossession of the schedule} 'i..'t.'.'... property u/sr1+ of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. .:; I i 3

¶28

¶29

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.09.05.2023 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 10.1L.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Acl, 2OO2 and the sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. In fact, the Applicant filed copy of the said possession notice along with the SA liled by him. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication frled 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(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶30

As per the provisions ofSection 14 ofSARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, th.e 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 Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Warangal, u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.06 124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. ld.CJM, Warangal, after considering the m4terial on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued ngtice;df!-0-106.2024 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property t filed copy of the said notice along with the SA. So the ted by the Respondent for taking physical possession of u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly

¶31

¶32

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,20O2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶33

Polnt No.(ii):-

¶34

In the result, S,A242/24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶35

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

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Ddated to the P. S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 2 7d dag of Nouember,2025).

¶38

sdl-
(G. GOPr CHANDI
u.- :'* r\ PRESIDING OFFICER
1ts T
F'I
#ffi'g
#)
,I wzsNt#%

Jithender Nagabelly v. Sriram finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithender Nagabelly v. Sriram 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

Kamma Upender versus State Bank of India

Alakuntla Yellaiah versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

G Sreedharan versus Bank of Baroda

Central Bank of India versus Sri. Mohd. Khaleel

Canara Bank versus Sri. Sura Sree Harsha

State Bank of India versus Smt. Jonnada Sravani