Dismissed

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar v. Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/352/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's securitization application seeking to set aside a possession notice. The court found the respondent had validly served notices and the classification as NPA was not challengeable on the facts.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application under Section 17 was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications closed.

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF OCTOBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAf4ESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.com, L.LB (Hons.), Nl.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.352^{OF 2022}

¶5

Sri Chilamaturu Naresh^Kumar S/o Chilamaturu Prakash^Setty Aged about 39^years,Male Occ: Business, R/o H.No.5/378 Near Market Yard, Kosigi Road Yemmiganur, Kurnool District 518360

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bajaj Houslng Finance^Limited Rep by its authorized officer Sltuated at 1't Floor, d.No.1/1543 HBS Colony, Opp.RTC Bus^Stand Gandhi Nagar, Yemmiganur Kurnool Distrlct 518360

¶9

... .Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the APPlicants^{: Mr'} D. Raghavulu Counsel for ResPondent^{: Mr'} 5. Nagesh Reddy

¶11

-:o-B-DI-R:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{present Securltisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to set aside the^{possessionnotice dated05.11'2022 under} Sec.13(4) of the^{Act against application schedule property and action} to take^{physical possession of the property in pursuanceof crl MP} No.51 of 2023 on the filing of^{learned Chief JudicialMagistrate,} Kurnool District.

¶13

The case of the applicant,^{in brief,is that applicant availedloan} of Rs.36,22,500/- for^{business purpose againstmortgage of} /ftw,,,2.c_ /'/ -{.t'-'

¶14

Page 2 of3

¶15

SANo.35212022

¶16

application schedule property as security. Due to unforeseen problems and Covid-19 pandemic his business went into losses thereby default was caused. Without considering the request to regularize account by receiving overdue instalments the respondent classified the account as NPA against RBI guidelines. Cheques were presented even after granting moratorium and heavy penalties upto Rs.6 lakhs were levied. Without serving demand notice and possession notice and without publishing and affixing the possession notice the respondent is proceeding to take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

The respondent filed reply statement along with list of documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the statement of account reflects the fact that payment bouncing commended from October, 2019 onwards i.e., before the advent of Covid-19 pandemic. Account was classified as NPA on 03.03.2022. The demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 08.08.2022 and possession nouce dated 03.tt.2022 were served and published and the possession notice was also affixed on secured asset. The respondent strictly followed due procedure and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Representatives of both the learned counsel reported that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material documents placed on record.

¶19

The respondent filed sufficient material as proof of service of demand notice, possession notice and publication of demand notice and possession notice and affixture of possession notice on the application schedule property. The fact of bouncing in payment before the onset of Covid-19 is not denied by the ap_plicant. Hence NpA ffi'v

¶20

Page 3 of 3

¶21

sA No.3s2l2022

¶22

classification cannot be^questioned. The applicant^{failed to make out} any valid^ground to set aside any of the^{measuresof the respondent} under the Act, 2002 against the SA^{scheduleproperty and accordingly} SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Point No.(ii):

¶24

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is^hereby dismissed. 7. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications^pending, if^any, shall stand closed.

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned and} upload in the official website.

¶27

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the od doy of october, 2025).

¶28

PRESIDING OFFICER

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar v. Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar v. Bajaj 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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bellamkonda Dileep

Mr.Vijaypal Reddy and another versus M/s.Indostar Capital Finance Ltd.

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anusha Agencies

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Osrmp Warehousing Enterprises

Shivender Reddy Gutha versus Karvy Finance Services Ltd.