The DRT dismissed the applicant's challenge to the respondent's steps for taking physical possession of mortgaged property via an advocate commissioner, holding the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were legal and in accordance with statutory rules.
Application SA No. 340/2C23 was dismissed; interlocutory applications stood disposed of.
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
DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.340/2C23
Sri PratapJadpod, S/o Sri Tara Singh, Aged_4S_years, R/o H.No.2 O_3_ 142, Flat N-o.205, 2"d F.loor, Sriramnagar, Road No.5, Khammam_SOZOO2.
... Applicant
And.
LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Flat No 304, 3dfloor, Maitrivanam, HUDA Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 O38 Rep. by its Authorized oflicer
.... Respondent
Counselfor the Applicant : Sri B. Sanjay Kumar CounselfortLrc Respondent : Si Hari Prasad pod.ila
.:ORDER:.
- This application is fired by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the sARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Mahabubabadin Crl.M.P.No.17T 123 and to declare the same as illegal and void.
physical possession of the schedule property. But demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant. The said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and the same was not published in two daily newspapers and hence the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner are illegal. Hence the SA.
Polnt llo.(tf :-
record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice which was admittedly received by the Applicant. So, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property are perfectly legal and valid.
Polnt No.(tl)r
i3. In the result, SA 34o123 is dismissed as there are no merits.
bg her, colected, signed and pronounced bA me in the open court oft this the Sh
0 5 AUE 2t[5 :
:i.
;i#m,?.:;r.r,;ll[t
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the steps taken by the respondent for physical possession via an advocate commissioner?
Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for physical possession are legal and valid?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri PratapJadpod
LIC Housing Finance Ltd
GummaDi GoPiChA
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
