Dismissed

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DRT2 May 2025SA/260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Foreign Aceasta issued a demand notice and later a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. Applicants challenged the possession notice's validity, claiming non-affixation and non-publication. The adjudicating officer examined evidence of publication and affixation upholding them.

What did the court decide?

The Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed.

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh versus Shriram City… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.260/2022

¶5

1.Sri Shankar San SahooRajputh, S/o Sri DinabhanduSahoo, Aged 56 years, Occ:business,

¶6

Rlo 2- 186, Penjarla Road, Kothur village& Mandal, R.R.D istrict-SO9228..

¶7

2.Smt. R.Satyabhama,

¶8

W/o Shankar SanSahooRajputh, Aged 49 years, Occ:business, Rlo 2- 186, Penjarla Road, Kothur village& Mandal, R.R.D istrict-509228

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Himayathnagar branch, D.No.3-6 -620, 4th floor, Bhupal Reddy Complex, Street No.8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-sO0 029. Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : Sn B.Sanjag Kumar

¶14

Counsel for Respondent Bank : Sri M.Indrasen

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Application is filed u/ s. 1 7of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2
(SARITAESI Act, 2oo'2) challenging the Possession Notice dt.13.10.2022
issued in respect of the schedule property and to
declare{fge Eafr46s ift6 nd arbitrary.
: 14. &$
:: :.
2. licants in brief are as follows:
''
rrrtiiatcrm6"l. t' fiH[#,
Il *,,'",$o :-" .i

¶17

sA260122

¶18

The Applicants availed loan to a tune of Rs.35 lakhs from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property.Even though, Moratorium was declared by the Reserve Bank of India, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.26.o4.2o22 to the Applicants u/s 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and after receiving the said notice, the Applicants submitted their objections on 25.06.2022. But the Respondent gave a vague reply on 0 l.O7 .2022 and thereafter the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13. 10.2022 and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property and also not published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶19

¶20

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan outstanding dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA on o9.o7.2o21 as per the RBI guidelines. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.26.o4.2o22 uls 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was received by the Applicants and the Applicants submitted their objections in response to the said demand notice and the Respondent issued reply to the said objections. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13. lo.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was received by Applicants. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in daily newspapers and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and peruse material brought on record.

¶22

<br>5. 6.-oi for consideration are
ll ttr r':i -a
-t'\r.
il" !! * 0 2 ltlAY
?tL| frlr * I i
Es M t!
-*Fo'k--Y
c." . :.nt...//r
R,h,r,rt: . -r,F
-\i.f .11ru,.'

¶23

sA260/22

¶24

l. whether the Appricants haue estabrished. any uarid. ground.s for challenging the possession Notice d.t.13.r0.2o22 issued by the Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶25

u. To what relief ?

¶26

Point Jvo.(if :-

¶27

5' During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶28

6' The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that in view of the default committed by the Applicants, the Respondent issued demand notice u/s t3(2) of the SARFAEST Act,2oo2 and the Applicants received the said notice. In response to the said notice, the Applicants raised objections and the Respondent issued reply to the said objections' There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13. ro.2022 to the Applicants and the said notice was received by the Applicants.

¶29

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the impugned possession notice dt.13. ro.2o22 was neither affixed on the schedule property nor pubrished in two daily newspapers and so, the impugned possession notice is not legal and valid.

¶30

Per co fFqn$ent^{contended that they have} duly followed the p the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and "%krer ]fu^made reund$\ issuingthe possession notice. * 02 r(1. zffi :)i M3

¶31

sA260/22

¶32

9' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent havefiled relevant material documents arong with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the possession notice dt.13. lO.2022 was published in two daily newspapers on 13.to.2o22 as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule s(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the schedule property.

¶33

1 1' Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing and possession notice to the Applicantsand there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondentand against the Applicants.

¶34

Point No.(ii):-

¶35

In the result, SA 260 12022 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶36

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶37

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictat
cou y, 2025).bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open
.d"
,(:v

¶40

sd/-

¶41

(c. coPr CHAND)

¶42

c1"[?w PRESIDING OFFICER ^"$l,s;f#i'i{or.

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Aiguille Hotels Inc.

State Bank of India versus Sri.Bharat Singh Rajput

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Sree Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

Smt Koneru Kasi Ratnam versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala