Dismissed

Technocrats Re by Its Propreitor v. Hdfc Bank

DRT14 Oct 2025SA/255/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debtors Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissed a Section 14 SARFAESI application filed by borrowers challenging the bank's enforcement proceedings. The court held that the bank followed the mandatory notice procedures and statutory rules, validating the steps taken to appoint an advocate commissioner for taking physical possession.

What did the court decide?

SA 255/23 and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Technocrats Re by Its Propreitor versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.255,/2C23

¶5

Technocrat Rep. by its Proprietor

¶6

Mr.M.A.Moeed Khan, S/o M.A.Jaleel Khan,

¶7

Aged 55 years, 10-5-2 /F/c19, Opp. Balaji Grand Bazar, Masab Tank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad..

¶8

Mrs.Masarath Khan, W/o Mohd. Abdul Moeed Khan, Aged 49 years, 1-9-297 l3lB, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-S00 044.

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

1.The Authori zed offtcer HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶12

No. 1-f0-63/3, 3.d floor,

¶13

Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad-SOO Ol6.

¶14

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

¶15

Rep. by its Branch Manager

¶16

No. 1-10-63/3, 3rd floor, Suryodaya Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad-SOO 016

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for the Respondents

¶19

Sri N.Abhay Singh Sn lV.B. Sudarshan

¶20

Reserued on '#:-, 02.09.2025 Pronounced on 4.10.2025 Uploaded on .10.2025 we j 1 { orr zl}zs :

¶21

W-"--ry

¶22

.:ORDER:-

¶23

This application is Iiled by the Appricants u/s. r7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.lV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.1545 /23 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶24

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

¶25

The Applicant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor and availed loan from the Respondent No.2 for business purpose and the Applicants created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. Due to Covid-19, the Applicants could not pay some instalments. Without considering the request of the Applicants for OTS, the Respondents initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondents straightaway initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by frling Crl.M.P.No. 1545/23 on the file of Ld.IV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.lV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad issued notice dt.LL.O7.2O23 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule premises. The Respondents have not considered the substantial payments made by the Applicants. The impugned possession notice was not published in newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property and So, the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondents u/g._.ff-.of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are illegal and ^{,t:; -.,.} . - -arbitrary.

¶26

6t ). The ents Iiled their Rdr denying all the adverse allegations made Joa,,!$T"i$F.*"" t the Applicants availed loan from the dent and committed default in repaying the

¶27

loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NpA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondents issued demand notice dt.31.12.2O2L u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was received by the Applicants. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.L6.O3.2022 and the said notice was received by the Applicants. The said notice was published in two leading newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. The amounts paid by the Applicants were adjusted towards pending EMIs. Thereafter, the Respondents initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Thus, there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶28

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the

¶29

Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶30

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶31

t. uthether the Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for cLnllenging the steps initiated bg the Respondents for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertA through aduocate ammissioner?

¶32

n. To what relief?

¶33

Point .I\Io.(i):-

¶34

During the course of arguments, [d. Counsel for the Applicants and ld. Counsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶35

There is no t the l"t Applicant availed loan from the 2"d ts created mortgage in respect of the sch for the said loan and thereafter, the Applican ins the loan dues.

¶36

8' The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, ttre Respondents straightaway, 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.

¶37

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 20O2.

¶38

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondents enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply frled by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued demand notice dt.31.12.2021 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the said notice was duly received by the Applicant No.2 as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondents whereas the notice sent to the Applicant No.1 was returned with the endorsement 'left' as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement liled by the Respondents. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.16.O3.2022 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2002 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post. The said possession notice was publiShbd"ie Ielugu - and English daily newspapers :. --i\ as evidenced by the coiries lication filed by the Respondents and the said no schedule property as depicted Respondents. Thus the in the copies }"Ti'Tffzfii'T A, ^S

¶39

Respondents have duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.

¶40

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, tt,.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 Applicants, the Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld.lV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 lor appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.lV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.ll.O7 .2023 to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property. The Applicants filed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by them. So, the said notice dt.ll.O7.2023 issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶41

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondents on the file of the Ld.IV Addl. CMM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession ofthe 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 Respondents for taking of the schedule property u/s 14 of the rdingly, this point is answered in favour of the fi.,rra.ri"^gria e Applicants. e.ii #' lrl^(t[., * 1(ocTzffi IT AC . :',^{- :r} ;^,.1{1-i-- .{1 l ,rr'ffi t..' '' iitl;:':"-i;i

¶42

Point No.(tt)r

¶43

In the result, sA 255/23 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶44

14' consequently, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶45

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictaled '"t o"iiJ,'niii to the P.S trunscribed "^{* *-"ves} bu^ve her'q1''^coftected sigtued dnd pronounced bv ne ilthe open couft onthb the 14h daa

¶47

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

; lfocrztrr ;
W,.'€trF'

¶49

^^' !, H}{O5R48ro.

Technocrats Re by Its Propreitor v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Technocrats Re by Its Propreitor v. Hdfc Bank

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

M S Balaji Business Corporation versus State Bank of India

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others versus Karur Vysya Bank

1.Smt v Rajamma versus Union Bank of India

Smt Kethe Swathi versus Development Credit Bank Ltd.

P Bala Rathnam versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramireddy Nanda Kishore