Allowed

Mr Anandraj Saloman v. Home First Finance Company India Limited

DRT25 Sept 2025SA/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside two possession notices issued by the respondent finance company under the SFA, 2002. The court held the notices liable to be quashed as the respondent failed to comply with Rule 8(1) and issued a fresh notice illegally during the subsistence of an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed by setting aside the possession notices dated 10.06.2024 and 08.02.2025.

Mr Anandraj Saloman versus Home First Finance Company India… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization Application No.291 OF 2024

¶4

Mr. Anandraj Saloman S/o Samson, Aged about 47 years Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.3O2 Avanthi Apartments, Street No.g Habsiguda, Hyderabad-5OO 007

¶5

Versus

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Home First Finance Company India Limited Rep by its Authorized Officer Situated at Regd. Office 511 Acme Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. A. Bala Narasimha Counsel for Respondent : MS. K. Rajani

¶9

-: O-R-DER:-

¶10

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Apptication 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 the^possession notice dated 10,06.2024 issued by the respondent bank under Sec.13(4) of the Act against the application schedule property.

¶11

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the applicant availed housing loan of Rs.10 lakhs in the year 2015 against mortgage of application schedule property. He was unable to^pay some instalments due to unforeseen problems on account of pandemic. Account was illegally declared as NPA. Respondent failed ,CQu^,,^.* / /_/ /4,1t\

¶12

Page 2 of4

¶13

sA No.29u2024

¶14

2OO2 and^{Rules3, 8 (1) and} to follow^{Secs.13(2),13(4) of the Act.} 8(2) thereunder.^{Hence the SA.}

¶15

The respondent^{bank filed replystatement denying the adverse} averments of^{the application. It is submittedthat due to defaultin} repayment, the^{account becameNPA on 04'04 '2024as perRBI} guidelines. Demand^{notice u/s 13(2) daled04'04'2024was servedon} applicant on^{14.02.2024besidespublicationin Teluguand English} newspapers.^{Possesslon notice dated 05.06.2024under Sec13(4)} was also issued,^{publishedand affixedas per Rules' SA is liableto be} dismissed.

¶16

Heard learned counsel^{appearingfor the applicantand learned} counsel for the^{respondent. Perused the written arguments filed for} the^parties and the^{material brought on record.}

¶17

During the course of arguments, the^{learned counsel for the} applicant as well as^{learned counsel for respondent reiterated their} respective version as in the application^{and reply statement.}

¶18

The^points for consideration are as^{follows :} -

¶19

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^{ground to} quash the measures initiated by the respondent aqainst the SA schedule^property as^prayed for?

¶20

ii) To what reliee

¶21

Point No.(i):

¶22

Admittedly, the applicant availed home_loan facility and committed defautt in repayment. OV*O

¶23

pa8e 3 of4

¶24

SANo.ZgtlzOZ4

¶25

As per postal track report filed by the respondent, demand notice was delivered to the applicant. However, proof of affixture of possession notice dated 10.06.2024 is not flled. According to applicant, the Tribunal granted interim stay of further proceedings subject to payment of Rs.2.50 lakhs which has been complied with. However, while the interim stay is in force and SA is pending, on 08.02.2025 it issued another possession notice under Sec.13(4) and illegally entered the application schedule property to affix the same on the property, serve to the applicant which is nothing but contempt of the court. Applicant placed on record possession notice dated 08.02.2025 and the respondent has not denied this fact. Hence it is to be inferred that the respondent resorted to issue fresh^possession notice while the interim stay ls in force.

¶26

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that^the respondent failed to follow Rule 8(1) and accordingly,^possession notice dated 10.06.2024 is liable to be set aside along^with possession notice dated 08.02.2025 stated to be issued by respondent while interim stay was in force.

¶27

Point No.(ii):

¶28

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationis allowed by setting} aside^possession notice dated 10.06.?024^issued by the^respondent against the application schedule^property.

¶29

11, It is also held that the^possession notice^{datedoa.o2,zo25} issued, if any, during subsistence of interim stay^{shaAglsostand set} aside. //)2<\Lo1 (')t'

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

SA No.291/2024

¶32

L2. Consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs.}

¶33

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official^website.

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion by the Ps, corrected, signed^{andpronounced by mein the opencourt on this} the 25'h ddy of september,^2025).

¶35

&'o"r:Pq ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Anandraj Saloman v. Home First Finance Company India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Anandraj Saloman v. Home First Finance Company India 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

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders