Dismissed

Mohammed Ismail v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

DRT4 Dec 2025SA/274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act application, the applicant challenged the respondents' initiation of proceedings to take physical possession of mortgaged property via an advocate commissioner. The Debts Recovery Tribunal of Hyderabad held that the lenders duly followed statutory procedures under Section 14, including proper issuance and publication of possession notices as per the Security Interest (Enforcem

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Mohammed Ismail versus Shriram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

sA.No.274/2024

¶5

Mohammed Ismail, S/o Md.Ali, aged 53 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.2-7-8 17, Alipura, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda-506001.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

1.The Authorized officer Shriram Finance Ltd., Regd. Office:Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai

¶9

Branch Office:Kazipet, Warangal District.

¶10

The Divisional Recovery Manager Shriram Finance Ltd., Regd. Oflice:Sri Towers, Plot No.l4A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai Branch Office:Kazipet, Warangal District ... Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Sri Mahadeu ny amrambhatla Counsel for the Respondent Si P.Ram Chandran

¶12

Reserued on : 24.10.2O25 Pronounced on :04.12.2025 Uploaded on :04.12.2025

¶13

.:ORDER:.

¶14

,dF'^1' is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, * 2OO2, c1 the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking on of the schedule E^{0 a Offi1$rrctr} property through Advocate pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No. 12 124 on the file ol anamkonda and to declare the same as illegal and void. efu" ";

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant availed mortgage loan of Rs.75 lakhs from the lst Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule propergr. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and so, lst Respondent issued demand notice dt. 13.03.2023 and the outstanding due claimed in the said demand notice is very high. After issuance of demand notice, the Applicant paid an amount of Rs.g lakhs to the l.t Respondent. Without issuing possession notice and without considering the said payment, the Respondents straightaway initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through advocate commissioner and so the said proceedings are not legal. The impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and the same was not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondents liled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan of Rs.75 lakhs from the lst Respondent for business purpose in the yea:. 2O2l against the mortgage of schedule property. After availing loan from the lst Respondent, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classilied as NpA on OS.O9.2O22 as per the guidelines of RBI. The lst Respondent issued demand notice dt. 13.03.2023 and sent the same to the Applicant and guarantors through Regd. Post. and the said notice was received by the Applicant and others. The reply as contended by the Applicant in response to the demand notice was given after expiry of 60 days and as such, no reply from the Respondents is necessar5r. When the Applicant failed to comply with notice, the lst Respondent issued possession notice and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. notice was published in Mana Telangana and Indian and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in 2

¶18

issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. So, there are no violations and accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the

¶20

Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶22

i. whetler the Applicant has establi.shed ang ualid grounds for challenging tle proceedings initiated bg the Respondents for taking phgsical possession of tle sclrcdule propertg through aduocate commissioner?

¶23

ii. To uthat relief?

¶24

Point iVo.(if:-

¶25

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

¶26

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the 1"t Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards securit5r for the said loan and thereafter, the Applicant default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was A. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the 1"t demand notice to the Applicant and the Applicant

¶27

^^{received the} U 4 lEC nts

¶28

The specilic contention of the Applicant is that without serving possession notice to the Applicant and without complying with Rule S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2OO2, t]ne Respondents initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule propertSr through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶29

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 Applicant and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession ofthe schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶30

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondents filed relevant material documents. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued demand notice dt. 13.03.2023 and sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd. post and admittedly the Applicant received the said notice. Thereafter, the lst Respondent issued possession notice dt.13.06.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondents and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondents. Thus the Respondents have duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶31

of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured

¶32

dle0i6t0smfiber& approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief for taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶33

after issuing demand notice and possession notice to 4

¶34

the Applicant, the Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by frling crl.M.P.No. 12 12024 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedure property. Ld.cJM, Hanamkonda, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner. So the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶35

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,2oo2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.

¶36

Polnt No.(ii)r

¶37

In the result, SA 274 /24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the Ps trdnscribed. bg her, coftected., sigtAd. and. protounced ba me in the open court ofl this the 46
{t
(G. coPr cHArrD)coPr cHArrD)cHArrD)
l*,l.,o PRFSIDING OFFICER
\k-

¶41

sdl(G. coPr cHArrD)coPr cHArrD)cHArrD) PRFSIDING OFFICER

Mohammed Ismail v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ismail v. Shriram 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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Power Looms Industry

Yara Linga Reddy versus Karnataka Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr Harshul Gupta

Akula Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Mohan Babu Amgoth versus Shriram Finance Limited

Sri Kunal Jain versus Mahesh Bank