Dismissed

Ravi Kumar Ramagalla v. Sriram Finance Limited

DRT18 Jul 2025SA/347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicants challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent financial institution alleging arbitrary and illegal initiation of proceedings. The court examined whether procedural violations occurred during the issuance of the demand and possession notices.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ravi Kumar Ramagalla versus Sriram Finance Limited — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1STH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.347./23

¶5

1.Ravi Kumar Ramagalla, W/o Somaiah, aged 40 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5-5-32, Ambedkar Nagar, Janagaon, Warangal.

¶6

2.Smt. AnjammaRamagalla, W/o Somaiah,aged 60 years, Occ:household R/o H.No.6'1-12 /6, Ambedkar Nagar, Janagaon, Warangal.

¶7

DayakarChennuri, S/o Ilaiah, aged 40 years, Occ:contractor, R/o H.No.5-6-37 l25, Rajeevnagar, Cheriyal, Jangaon, Warangal.

¶8

Smt.RajiniRamagalla,

¶9

W/o Ravi Kumar,aged 37 years, Occ:household, R/o H.No.5-5-32, Ambedkar Nagar, Janagaon, Warangal. ... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shriram Finance Ltd., O/o 6tr, floor, Building No.e2, Aurum Q parc, Gen 5/ 1, TTC, ThaneBelapur Road,Navi Mumbai Branch at H.No.1-8-581, Above Vaishnavi Honda Show room, Beside Landmark Hotel,

¶12

... Respondent : Sri Ramesh BabuVishutanathula : Si N.Raghuueer

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act,2002) challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.O8.2O25 issued by theRespondent in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

The averments made by the Applicants in brief are as follows:

¶16

Applicant No.1 availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Even though, Applicant No.l is regularly paying the loan dues, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2O02 and issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and trying to take physical possession of the schedule property. The impugned possession notice is against the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the same is tiable to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant No.l having availed loan from the Respondent committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.ol .o4.2o2s u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and also possessionnotice dt.24.o9.2o23 byduly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, '^{.-'-..*,.-":r'} -2pol and^...- Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, Respondent prayed

¶18

Counsel for the

¶19

ftp$tae

¶20

$l\r .$.,!{'l'Bq +*,+rur.t'

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶22

i. whether the Applicants haue established anA ualid^grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.24.O8.2023^issued by^tte Respondent against the schedule^property?

¶23

ii. To what relief?

¶24

Point IVo.(if :-

¶25

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicants and Ld.} Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their^{respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶26

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact thatthe^ApplicantNo' I^availed loan from the Respondent whereas the Applicants^No.2 to^{4 stoodas} guarantors and Applicant No.2created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan. There is^also no^dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent issued^{possession notice to the} Applicants.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicants is that even though^{they are} paying the loan amounts regularly, Respondent initiated^proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Acl,2OO2 and^{issued demand notice} and possession notice without following the contemplated^procedure.

¶28

pondentcontended that they have duly followed the

¶29

ure under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and er in issuingdemand notice and^possession notice

¶30

1,J,rUhJffi"u.,rs

¶31

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 after classifying the loan account as NPA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.OI.O4.2O23 u/ s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.Post and the said notice was received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued Possession notice dt.24.O8.2O23 and the said notice was admittedly received by the Applicants. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu 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 copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice to the Applicants.

¶32

Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondenthas scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Ruies made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of theRespondent and against the Applicants.

¶33

Point No.(tl):-

¶34

.result,^{SA 347l23is} dismissed as there are no merits. tly, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall

¶35

"@.i No order as to costs. J.^.1

¶36

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dctated to the P.S, transcrib_ed bA-trcr, conected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this tle l Sthdag of Julg, 2025).

¶39

sd/(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

DRT.I, HYDIP.AEAC-

Ravi Kumar Ramagalla v. Sriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Ramagalla v. Sriram 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kanaka Durga Transport

Dhansingh Hari Singh versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri. Pavali Venkata Ramanaiah

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Jaya Mercy Asheervadam Perumalla

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed