The Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash a bank's attempt to take possession of properties. The court found no violation of the Securitization Act or relevant Rules, upholding the bank's procedural compliance.
The Securitization Application was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL 'II AT HYDEMBAD
DATED THISTHE 26TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT:SH. MMESHWARKOTHE,B Com,L'LB' (Hons)' 14 A' PRESIDINGOFFICER
SecuritizationApplication No'332OF 2024
....APPlicants.
Versus
M/s IndostarCapital Finance Ltd ReD bv itsAuthorized Officer eiin.h Offi." atH. No.6-3- 1192/ 1-6 e.i'i tr.unqBuilding,KundanBagh a"itrrp"tlSecunderabad500 016
...ResPondent
Mr. T.SridharReddY counsel forthe APPlicant Counselfor Res\ondentBank Mr.C. Viswanath
-:ORDERT-
Paee 2 of4
SA t{o.332/2024
5' During the course of arguments, the rearned counser for the respondent reiterated the contents of the reply statement. While relying on the documents filed application.com pria nce or procedu re,""." J";r;l] ::il:ff ::I L[::J
1N^*
Page 3 of4
sA No.332/2024
ii) To what relief?
Point No.(i);
(7 '-'"
page 4 of4
SA No.332/2024
action of respondent bank as void or arbitrary. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.( ii):
L2. No order as to costs.
(Typed to ny dictotion by the pS, corected, signed and prcnounced by me in the open court on this the 2d' doy ol Septentur, 2O2s).
(r'r-'l>r^
HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in issuing a reply to objection notices violates public delivery and causes a violation of Section 13(3A) of the Act.
Whether proper service, publication, and attachment of the Notice of Enforcement were carried out under Rules 8(1) and 8(2).
Whether the respondent is entitled to pursue physical possession of secured assets under Section 14 of the Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Vijay Pal Reddy
Smt Radhika
M/s Indostar Capital Finance Ltd
MM Eswar Kotha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
