Application for quashing possession notice issued under SARFAESI Act. Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected applicant's claim of defective service and publication, finding respondent complied with statutory rules based on documentary evidence.
Application dismissed with costs. Copy of order communicated to parties.
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 DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.338/2024
Ms.Gaddam Jyothi, W/o Gaddam Narsimgam, Gorrekunta village, Geesugonda village, Warangal-500o10 ... Applicant
Versus
Edeluteiss Asset Reconstructton Company Ltd., Rep. bg its Autlnrized Officer Windsor In, Kalino, Mumbai-40) 098 ... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicant : Si Ch. Kishare Counselfor Respondent : Si G. Prabtnkar Sharma
Reserued on : 24.1O.2025 Pronounced on :20.11.2025 Uploaded on :20.11.2025
ORDER
de in the Application in brief are as follows:
The Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and she was regularly paying the instalments and the account was not NPA. Without any prior notice, the employees of Respondent came to the schedule propert5r and threatened the Applicant to handover the physical possession of the schedule property by giving a copy of possession notice dt.2l .O8.2024. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and also not published in two leading newspapers as prescribed under Rule 8(1)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 and so, said notices are not legal and valid. The Applicant is ready to pay the overdue amount and regularize the loan account. Hence the SA.
J. The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the M/s Annapurna Canvasing Agent as borrower and the Applicant, Gaddam Narsingam as co-borrowers availed loan of Rs.IO,SO,OOO from HDB Financial Services Ltd. Sri Gaddam Narsingam being the owner of the schedule property created mortgage over the same and so, the Applicant is not the owner of the property and she cannot challenge the proceedings initiated by the Respondent. The Applicant and others have committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA and the same has been assigned by HDB Financial Services Ltd. In favour of the Respondent. So, the Respondent issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on O9.O5.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 to the Applicant and others and the same was retuned unserved and so, the Respondent published the said notice in Business Standard and Mana Telangana daily newspapers and the sarne was affixed at the addresses of the Applicant. When no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued notice to the Applicant and others and the sarne was i;+ daily newspapers. When the Respondent approached the t 20 for affixture of the said possession notice, the Applicant 1 has not officer to paste the said notice on the schedule property
and received the said notice by hand. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.
Polnt llo.(if:-
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
disprove the same, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply Iiled by them.
there are no merits in the SA. pending if any, sha1l stand as to costs.
4
(Dctated to the P.S, tronscibed bg her, conected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on thi.s the 20th dag of November,, 2025)
sd/lG.GOPrCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
2 0 }ls! 1{\r
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds to set aside the possession notice served by the respondent?
Whether the procedural requirements of issuance and service of demands and possession notices were complied with?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gaddam Jyothi
Edeluteiss Asset Reconstructton Company Ltd.
Gummadipprichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
