Dismissed

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram v. M/S Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

DRT6 Aug 2025SA/333/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No. 333/2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Hyderabad, dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the respondent's steps to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The court held that the respondent had validly issued demand and possession notices and followed the requisite procedure, finding no grounds for interference under Section 14.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession proceedings is dismissed; the steps taken by the respondent for physical possession are deemed legal and valid.

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram versus M/S Fullerton India Home… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS I'HE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2C^25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.333/2023

¶5

M ohd. SalahuddinMukarram, S/o Mohd. Samshuddin, Aged 39 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 19-3- lO89 lB I 15, Umda Begum, Jahanuma, Hyderabad-SOO 053. And.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

M/s Fullerton India }{ome Finance CompanSz Ltd., Flaving its branch office at H.No.6-3- I 19 L I I, 4n floor, KundanBagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶8

.... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Si A. BhuuanaSundar Reddg

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G.Adian Kiran Raj

¶11

.:ORDER:-

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/ s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule prop-erty through Advocate commissioner p"rsgEi#a:.'.the- orders of Ld.xVIAddl.CMM, Hyderaba din cr!,i{&-ffiib-#rtWi[:U declare the same as iuegal i 'B'\t

¶13

and void. ii tX &$

¶14

;^{o6ilrms :i} The averments\ffide in the applicatio.bji# brief, I r are that: Fi-+r/

¶15

*%,q-

¶16

The Applicant &-A{il J the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect'.0$ftl$i$@t_ew property. Thereafter due to loss

¶17

sustained in the business, the Applicant could not repay the loan dues. But without issuing any demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings before the Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabad lor appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule^property and the said Advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabadaffixed notice dt.05.09.2023 on the schedule propertSrand so, the said notice illegal and liable to be set aside. The impugned possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA. The Respondent issued demand notice dt. 15.06.2O2lard possession notice dt.21.09.2021 to the Applicant and the said notices are received by the Applicant.The Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant. Hence the proceedings initiated by the Respondent u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabadfor taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid. So there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

Heard Ld. licant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent brought on record.

¶20

Now the

¶21

uhetlrcr the Applicant has established anA ualid grounds for challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule propertg through aduocate commissioner?

¶22

ii. To what relief ?

¶23

Polnt lVo.(if :-

¶24

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

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaw&Y, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and SO, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶27

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provigions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and ,.. 'i$R Rulesmadet,heffisipissu,i.ngiliallthestatutorynoticestothe '- - -;^'J',:'! .__1 j Applican!,,"30 o:1,,."i!;ag.{ .lal s o orllff*hidkp" iilieil:skr" :/". ;r" i4 or the SA RFAESI Act, 2oo2 ror :": r' tt taking Bhysial .f, ' posiCpsio" "ffr\pchedule property. ii"l fi o E ilrB mr I \i a ,3

¶28

f0. In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed^relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As^per the^said documents, it is clear that on 15.06.2021, the Respondent^issued demand notice to the Applicant and the said notice was sent through Regd. Post and the said notice was published in Telugu and English^daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on^the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued^{possessionnotice} dt.21.O9.2O21 u/s 13(4) of the Act and the said^{notice was sent to the} Applicant through Regd.post. The said^{possessionnotice was published} in Teluguand English daily newspapers as evidenced by^{the copies of} paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice^{was also} affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the^{photograph filed by} the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has^{scrupulously followed Rule} 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,^{2OO2 intaking} symbolic possession of the schedule^property.

¶29

As per the provisions of Section 14 of^{SARFAESI Act, 2OO2,after} issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a)^{of the SARFAESIAct, 2OO2, the} secured creditor is at liberty to approach^{the concerned District} Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate^{for taking physicalpossession} of the secured asset. In the instant^{case, after issuing demand notice} and possession notice to the Applicant,^{the Respondent approached} Ld.XVIAddl.CMM, Hyderabadu/s 14 of the^{SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for} appointment of advocate commissioner^{for taking physical possessionof} the schedule property. Ld.XVIAddl.CMM,^{Hyderabadafter going through} the record, appointed advocate^{commissionerand the saidadvocate} commissioner visited the schedule.^{property and issued notice} dt.05.09.2023 ,'''l----tf) i^- ficpt 'r-'-ri^-^{to vacate the scheduleproperty.So, the} said proc,e.Eq"'gstlfidalue,*jh tn.^{Respondent for takingphysical} possessfd.:hiin. ".#0"1. ;::.; pl&.\J are^{perfectly legal and valid.} f!^-' u- \i

¶30

oSql$" 12. So, co ces, I am of the opinion that^the proceedi ndent before the Ld.XVIAddl.CMM,

¶31

Hyderabadu/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps 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 Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Point No.(ii):-

¶33

In the result, SA 333/23 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶34

t4. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 6th dag of Augus| 2025).

¶37

sd/ - (G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

lp I osurcaps y u ,rur-r (.[r(.J :c:^
,",.'
,i.-a}
li.."Jr,S" .,.s-.ir'
'{+-."' \l','- -..r 'J ',. , ,,.fr.'j,.'.;,i':..': .-.3:-,; ,1r ':.- )' '..'' ''
'' " "' '::it1u'

¶39

TRUE^GOPY ,-+*ffi!te

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram v. M/S Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Salahuddin Mukarram v. M/S Fullerton India Home Finance 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

Uco Bank versus Smt. Pulimamidi Kavitha

State Bank of India versus Mr. Brahmosthava Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri. Rathod Babulal

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepellisravan Kumar

Smt Kamozzala Savithri versus State Bank of India