Dismissed

Ravi Kanth Durgam v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by an applicant to set aside measures taken by a securitization company to take possession of secured property. The tribunal held the applicant lacked locus standi as the mortgagor (his wife) was not impleaded and found the respondent complied with statutory procedures for notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed; no ground to set aside the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property.

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), [4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.274 OF 2022

¶5

Sri Ravi Kanth Durgam S/o Mr. D. Yadagiri, Aged about 56 years Occ:Business, N o H.No,7 -L-227 / 6 MIG. H.No.224lB, SR Nagar Hyderabad - 500038

¶6

.......Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Rep by its authorized offlcer Situated at 11th Floor, North side R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway Goregaon(East), Mumbai-400 063 And also at 3'd Floor, Dhruva Apartment Road No.10, Banjara H ills Hyderabad

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

: Mr. D. Raghavulu : Ms,Maanam Sailaja

¶12

-:g-B-DEB:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures of the respondent under the Act, 2002 pursuant to possession notice dated 26.0A.2022 and advocate commissioner notice dated 26.03.2024 in pursuance of Warrant in Crl.MP No.1131 of 2023 on the file of learned UI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed mortgage loan of Rs.47.50 lakhs in the year 2008 against mortgage of the application schedule^property as security. Till 2021-Sfe^paymentwas ///r\.,^+e /^{t/,/ -1l^.r'}

¶15

Page 2 of4

¶16

SA No.27412022

¶17

regular but due to^{Covid-19 pandemic applicantcould not paysome} instalments.^{Withoutconsidering the substantial repayment of Rs 45} lakhs and the^{request for regularizationof account, the respondent} classified the^{account as NPA against RBI guidelines'The demand} notice was not^{served as per Rule 3 and possessionnotice was not} served, affixed and^{published as per Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the} Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules")'} The outstanding amount^{shown in the notice is Rs'1'46 crores} whereas^{property worth is morethanRs.3.50 croresBy suppressing} the fact of^{pendingSA the respondent obtainedorders in Crl MP for} taking^{physlcalpossession.The secured assetis a dwelling houseof} applicant and his^{family membersand respondentis trying to take} physical possession illegally.^{Hence thisSA.}

¶18

The respondent bank^{filed reply and additional reply statements} along with documents.^{The submissions, briefly,are that due to} heavy default the loan account^{of applicant became NPA ln} accordance with RBI^{guidelines. The demand noticeswas sent by} registered post,^published and^{affixed on the subject asset The} possession notice was also served, Published^{in two leading} newspapers besides its affixture^{on securedasset. The applicantis} not the mortgagor^{whereashis wife Mrs.VandanaDurgam is the} mortgagor and she^{is not madea party in the SA hence applicationis} liable to be dismissed.^{The applicant has no ground to prevent the} respondent from taking^{physicalpossession of the securedasset.} Hence application is liabte to be^dismissed. 4. Representative of the learned^{counsel for the applicantreported} orders may be^passed based on^{record. Heard learned counselfor the} respondent. Perused the material brought on^record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for^the respondent while referring to the document4?#y-*"r.rord^would -'l" (/

¶19

Page 3 of4

¶20

sA No.27412022

¶21

submit that the loan account was classified as NpA due to default. The applicant is not the mortgagor but his wife is who has not been made party to the present proceedings hence application is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that the demand notice was served in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the Act. The mortgagor Smt.Vandana Durgam received the possession notice and the same was published in English and Telugu newspapers and also affixed on secured asset. All the necessary information has been disclosed in the affidavit filed before learned CMM. The applicant has no ground to prevent the respondent from taking physical possession. Learned counsel would further contend that the respondent has stricfly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder and hence SA may be dismissed.

¶22

Now, the points for consideration are as follows : -

¶23

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property?

¶24

ii) To what relief?

¶25

Point No.(i'l:

¶26

The applicant, in his application admits of availing mortgage loan and default due to unforeseen problems and Covid-19 pandemic. Hence the categorization of the account as NPA cannot be treated as illegal. The secured asset is in the name of Smt.Vandana Durgam who is wife of the applicant. As rightly^pointed out by learned^counsel for the respondent, the mortgagor is not made a^party to^the proceedings. However, the material documents filed by the respondent would clearly^prove service of demand^{noticeas per} prescribed procedure. The possession notice dated 26.08.2022 was duly sent to the applicant and^{his wife, Smt.Vandana Durgam,}

,fu-,.-tg '-/ 'r*u'

Page 4 of4

sANo.27412022

mortgagor of^{securedasset, she received the notice vide} acknowledgement^{card placed on record. The possessionnoticewas} publishedon29.08.2022in.BusinessStandard,and.ManaTelangana, English and^{Telugunewspapersand got affixed on secured asset vide} copies of^{publicationand photographs placed on record' I find no} violation of Secs.13(2),^{13(4) of the Act or Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the} Rules of 2002.^{The respondentbeing secured creditor is entitled} under Sec.14 of^{the Act, 2002 to approachlearned CMM/DMfor} ordersontakingthephysicalpossessionofthesecuredassetand hence there is^{no illegality in such action'}

¶31

B. In view of^{the above observations, I find that the applicant} failed to make out^{any valid ground to set asideany of the measures} of the respondent^{against the SA scheduleproperty'Accordingly SA is} liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

In the result, the^{Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶34

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned^and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2gth doy of July, 2025).

¶37

Hii',,,y ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ravi Kanth Durgam v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kanth Durgam v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company 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

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

M.Thirupathi Reddy versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited