Dismissed

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass v. Gic Housing Finance Limited

DRT4 Aug 2025SA/346/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissed the applicant's challenge against the respondent bank's steps to take physical possession via an advocate commissioner. The court held the proceedings under Section 14 SARFAESI Act valid following a valid Section 13(a) possession notice and notification in newspapers, finding no violation.

What did the court decide?

The application filed u/s 7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is dismissed as there are no merits; pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass versus Gic Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.346./2024

¶5

Mrs.Harriet Francis Dass, W/o Richeard Samson, Aged 42 yeas, R/o H.No. 19-3-IL7 / 4 I D I 6, Plot No.8, Jahanuma, Hyderabad-S0O 053

¶6

. . . Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

M/s GIC Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer Having its office at 4ft floor, Nasapur House, 3-6-438 / 4, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Si R.A.Achgutanand Counsel for the Respondent Si Dhirendra Kumar Singh

¶11

-:ORDER:.

¶12

1 ' This application is liled by the Applicant u/ s. r 7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondentfor taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Hyderabadin Crl.M.P.No.6/ 2024 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶13

) The averments rridiqtiti&e '€r.i. aoo n, in brief, are that: .. --^'ri._i r,,e Apptica/'#;il.d-iffi f;"i espondent by creating mortgage in respect ffre sqhedule propertir. ereafter, the Respondent issued a.-.,,a "{[+ o,Bd,A[l0.AUhr, q3, ing the loan Account as NPA. Thereafter, fl fPspondent proceedings for taking physical Sob,,* 3#ii,

¶14

possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner under Section 74 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Cr1.M.P.No.6/2024 on the file of Ld.CMM, Hyderabad without issuing any possession notice. The advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, Hyderabad visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.O2.O9.2024 directing the Applicant to vacate the schedule property. Hence the impugned notice dt.02.09.2024 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent fired their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant having ava ed roan from the Respondent, committed default inrepaying the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NpA and accordingly, Respondent issued demand notice dt.og.1r.2o22and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. But the Applicant has not complied with the said demand notice, so, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 13.03.2023 and the said possession noticewas affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter,the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before Ld. CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physicar possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.cMM issued notice to the Appricant for vacating the schedure property. So there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

4' Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respo_ t and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

ror consideration are
rff%tryr".se ,
i: O ynfit"Mln ifitr"ort has estabtished ans uatid grounds for
challenging thpl|teps initiated bg the Respondent for taking
,,4
2
W

¶18

phgsical possession of the schedule propertA through ad.uocate commissioner?

¶19

ii. To what relief ?

¶20

Polnt IVo.(i):-

¶21

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

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicantavailed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues. There is also no dispute regarding the flact that the Applicant received thedemand notice issued by the Respondent.

¶23

B. The specific contention of the Applicant is that withoutissuing possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAES I Act,2OO2, the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedure property through advocate 'w,',rsslonecommissione r and s o' the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶24

Per contra, Respondentcontended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made '\qr!o^rrrcr(rc therer rnere}{lqer r.r{dE:.\r^ '-'ltT::r.sSJing ^. -:-all the statutory notices to the n", z..2 for :?::;il;::F:*ffi,ri i:^-b ffi : ::j::.r."^Bsr

¶25

In order n, the Respondentfiled relevant material ply filed by them. As per the said

¶26

documents, it is crear that theApplicant received thedemand notice dt.08. 11.2021 issued by the Respondent directing the Applicant to pay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days. It is not the case of the Applicant that he complied with the said notice or submitted any objections to the said notice. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 13.0 3.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act and the said notice was received by the Applicantas the Applicant himself filed copy of the said notice along with the SA. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper pubrication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously forlowed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002 in taking symbolic possession of the schedule property.

¶27

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Ld. CMM, Hyderabadu/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. CMM, Hyderabadafter going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.02.0g.2024 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. So, the said notice issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5z is valid.

¶28

¶29

So, con r all , I am of the opinion that the t before the Ld. CMM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of taking physical possession of the

¶30

schedule property are quite tegal 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 prop er\r uls 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶31

Polnt No.(fi):-

¶32

In the result, sA 346/24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶33

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶34

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

'"?XliXiltritiri.s transcribed" bg her, corrected, sisned and pronounced. bs me in the open court on thi.s th.e 4,n daa

¶37

sd/ - (c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

A.r5g,'Yr;:,

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass v. Gic Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass v. Gic Housing Finance 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

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited

Amit Bajaj versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

M S Indiramma Enterprises versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Miss Kurrapati Swarna Latha

C Rama Devi versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Smt. Chittareddy Swapnapriya