Dismissed

Smt Balija Ramadevi v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

DRT19 Nov 2025SA/268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, alleging illegal notice issuance. The Tribunal held that statutory notices were duly served and published, satisfying legal requirements even without affixation on the property. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Single Application No. 268 of 2024 was dismissed as there were no merits to interfere with the possession proceedings.

Smt Balija Ramadevi versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE ]8TH DAYOFNOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.268./2024

¶5

1.Smt. Balija Ramadevi, W/o Balija Raja Shekhar,

¶6

Aged 41 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.8-1-16/4, Green City, Old Tandur, Tandur Mandal,

¶7

Vikarabad, R.R. District-s0l 141.

¶8

Sri B.Rajasekhar, S/o Chenna Basappa, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.8-1-16/4, Green City, Old Tandur, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad, R.R. District-sO1 141

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd, Situated at 3-6-478, 56 floor, Anand Estates, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-sOO 029. Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

C oun s el fo r the Ap^plicant s Sri D.Raghatrulu Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.Indrasen

¶14

Reserued on 17.10.2025 Pronounced on 18.11.2025 Uploaded on 19.11.2025

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the^{SARFAESI Act,} g the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking cal'iaossession of the schedule^{propertiesthrough Advocate} 19 lmtrrTmFsioner^{pursuantto the ordersin Crl'M.P.No .37 12024 on the file} of Ld.CJM, Vikarabad and^{to declare the same as illegal and void.}

¶17

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

¶18

Applicant No.1 availed Mortgage loan of Rs.6O lakhs from^the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule^properties towards securitSr for the said loan. Due to Covid-l9,^{the Applicants} could not pay some instalments. The Respondent illegally declared^the loan account of the Applicants as NPA and without considering^the request of the Applicants to close the account under^{OTS,invoked the} provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without^publishing the said possession notice in two leading newspapers and without affixing the same on the schedule properties, straightaway^{proceededfor taking} physical possession of the schedule properties under Section¹⁴ of^the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so the said^{proceedings are null and void.} Hence the SA.

¶19

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the^{adverse allegations} made in the SA and contended that Applicant^{No.1 availed Business} loan from Shriram City Union Finance^{Ltd. and the same was later} amalgamated with Shriram Transport^{Finance CompanyLtd. and its} name was changed as Shriram Finance^{Ltd. w.e.f. 30.11.2022.} Applicant No.2 along with others^{stood as guarantorto the said loan} and created mortgage in^respect of^{the schedule properties. After} availing loan from the Respondent,^{the Applicants committed default in} repaying the loan dues and so,^{the loan account was classified as NPA} on 11.O5.2O21 as per the^{guidelines of RBI. The Respondentissued} demand notice dt.19.04.2o22 and^{sent the same to the Applicants} through Regd. Po_st. When^{the Applicants failed to comply with the said} notice, the Respondent issued^{possession notice dt.26.05.2023} ffinldfrd-i$Whe gk .t53. said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the ata:t !$aid^tidfu. tr.^{was published in Teluguand English dailynewspapers.} kr;i, f ffrr. the Respondent has^{followed the procedure contemplatedunder} 5rx! EI 1 S N0&.8ryr"visions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in ii rg :* \ S:. issuing, demand notice and^{possession notice to the Applicants.} '''i^X '"1:=.'i I .r:2 .,, ,, :,,i...,:ij:

¶20

Challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties through advocate commissioner, the Applicants filed stay petition, however, they failed to comply with the conditional stay order granted by this Honble Tribunal. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

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

¶22

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶23

i. tulether the Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for challenging tte steps initiated bg tle Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule properties through aduocate commissioner?

¶24

ii. To uth.at relief?

¶25

Polnt .I\Io.(if :-

¶26

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

¶27

There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicant No.1 availed loan from the Respondent and Applicant No.2 stood as^guarantor and created in respect of the schedule properties towards security for the thereafter, the Applicants committed default in repaying the the loan account was classilied as NPA.

¶28

¶29

1s t'iDlJ 2m tention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice to the Applicants and without complying

¶30

with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Respondent straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule properties through advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶31

Per contra, Respondent 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^{physicalpossession} of^the schedule properties u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶32

In order to substantiate their contention,^{the Respondentfiled relevant} material documents. As^per the said material documents, it^{is clear that} the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 19.04.2022^{and sent the same} to the Applicants through Regd.^{post and the said noticewas received by} the Applicants as evidenced by the^{postal acknowledgements filed by the} Respondent. When there was no response^{from the Applicantsto the said} demand notice, the Respondent^{issued possession notice dt'26.05.2023} u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the^{sent the same} to^{the Applicants. In} fact, the Applicants filed copy of the said^{possessionnotice along with the} SA. The said^{possession notice was publishedin Telugu and English daily} newspapers as evidenced by the copies^{of paperpublication filed by the} Respondent. However, no documents^{are filed by the Respondent to prove} that the said possession notice was affixed^{on the scheduleproperties. But} mere non-affixture of the^{possession notice on the schedule property} particularly when the Applicant is having^knowledge of^{the possession} by the Respondent, cannot be a^{groundto challengethe}

¶33

it. -!, When the Applicant received the possession notice and the

¶34

otice ls also published in two^{daily newspapersincludingone in}

¶35

iP vernacular lanzuage, even^{if the} said^{notice is not affixed on the secured}

¶36

1 i"J[q!'Js",,"*0. "^{ground for the borrower as t]re affixture is meant} eral public. In this regard,^{the Hon'ble Htgh Coura of} 4

¶37

¶38

¶39

Andhra Pradesh tn M/s Sollthro Priuate Ltmited Vs. The Debts tecotrery Tribunal-l, reported ln 2018 SCC Onllne Hgd 788, has held in paragraph 17, which is as follows:

¶40

In this regard, it mag be noted that Rule B(1) of t?rc R;Jes of 2002 reEtires tle authorised officer of tle secured creditor to deliuer a possession notice, prepared as nearlg as possible in Appendix-IV to the Rules of 2002, to the bonou.ter and bg affixing it on the outer door or at a conspicaous place of the propertg. It is not in dispute that the borrou-ter compang receiued the possession notice dated 04.08.2012. The complaint uas that it had not been affued on tle SA schedule propertg. Affixture of such possession notice on the outer door or at a conspianous place of the property is notice to the public at large. This is clear from the contents of the stafi)tory fonnat of tLe possession notice in Appendix-IV to the ktles of 2002. TLereunder, the borou-ter in particalar and the public in general are cautioned not to deal uith the propertg. In such a situation, it is not open to the borower companA, hauing alreadg receiued lhe possession notice dated 04.O8.2012, to complain of failure on tle part of ING Vgsga Bank Limited in affixing tle notice on the premises of the seanred assels. If at all, such a gieuance could be projected bg a member of the general public who dealt with the seanred ossefs in ignorance of the possession notice. Such is not the case presently.

¶41

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid'-dowg-r,1rnder the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made -'-....'...'

¶42

thereunder irttssuing possession notice dt.26.05.2023 u/s l3(4) of the

¶43

,.i

¶44

-. Act,B002. "tt' r*^,"

¶45

As^per the^provisions of Section¹⁴ of SARFAESI^{Act, 2002, afterissuance} ;"4 ,'t ,-t'. of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured s

¶46

.,,.,,

¶47

creditor is at libert5r 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 Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Vikarabad, u/s 14 of t1le SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.37 124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule properties. Ld.CJM, Vikarabad, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession ofthe schedule properties u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶48

13 So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶49

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶50

In the result, 5A268124 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶51

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

¶52

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶53

.s
,t*
: 1sffirrr :
IQ
isS,..-.{-r".*fs7
!rl1'ttt'' 't=

¶54

bg Ler, coteded, signed and pronounced bA tue in the opetu court ofl this the 1Ah ddA sd/(G. GOPI CHANDI PRESIDING OT'FICER ,!st. D!:T.t

Smt Balija Ramadevi v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Balija Ramadevi v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr S Prabhakar Reddy versus State Bank of India

Mohammad Ayoob versus Icici Bank Limited

Nandaram Singh Hazari versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs a Madhavi versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

Indian Bank versus M/S. Raju Communications