Dismissed

Pajjuri Lasyapriya v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT5 Mar 2025SA/354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ application, the applicant challenged the possession notice and the proceedings for taking physical possession of the secured property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the respondent adhered to the statutory procedure regarding demand and possession notices.

What did the court decide?

The security application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

Pajjuri Lasyapriya versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.354/2023

¶5

Mrs. PajjurilasyaPriya, W/o Raghu Pajjuri, Aged 42 years, Occ:business, Pasumamula(v), Hayathnagar(M), R.R. District-SO1 510.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

l.TATA Capital Housing Finance Ltd.,

¶9

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶10

2"d floor, Lopamudra Arcade, Naim Nagar, Hanamkonda,

¶11

Warangal, Telangana-5O6 00 1.

¶12

TATA Capital Housing Finance Ltd., Regd. Office , 11tr, floor, Tower-A, Peninsulabusiness Park,

¶13

GanapatraoKadam Marg, Lower Patel, Mumbai-4OO 013. Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Counsel for ; Sn Akkapaka Sriniuas Counsel for Sri Lanka Jagannadham * O5ilAR 7ff5 ,. :

¶16

is file by Il Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, ssion notice dt.12.06.2023 and the the Respondents through advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and to declare the same as illegal.

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶18

sA3s412023

¶19

The Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant could not pay the loan instalments regularly.But the Respondents without issuing any demand notice, straightaw&Y, issued possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule^propertynor published in two newspapers and without taking such measures, the Respondentsare trying to take^{physical possession} of^{the schedule} property through advocate commissioner. Hence the SA.

¶20

.). The Respondents filed counter and adopted^{the sameas Reply in the} SA denying all the adverse allegations made in^{the SA. It is contended} that the Applicantavailed loan from the Respondentsand^created mortgage in respect of the schedule^{property.Thereafter,the} Applicant committed default in repayment of^{loan dues, so, the loan} account of the Applicant was declared as^{NPAand the Respondents} issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the^{SARFAESIAct, 2OO2 on} 14.03.2023 to the Applicant and the said notice^{was published in} two daily newspapers on 23.03.2023.^{Thereafter,the Respondents} issued possession notice u/s 13( ) of the Act^{on 08.06.2023and sent} the said notice to the Applicant through^{regd. post for taking} symbolic possession of the schedule^{propertyand the said notice was} published in Business Standard and Mana'lelangana^{newspapers on} 12.06.2023 and the said notice was also^{affixedon the schedule} property. Thereafter, the Respondents initiated^{proceedings before the} Ld.CMM, R.R. District by filing Crl.M.P.No.265 12023^{for appointment} of advocate commissioner for taking^{physicalpossessionof the} schedule property and theLd.CMM^{was pleased to appoint advocate} commissioner and the said advocate commissioner^issuedvacate notice to the Ap;fU 2.O9.2O23 for evicting the schedule s have followed the laid down property. T procedure SARITAITSI Act,2OO2 and Rules made ,n.T_*.,0..0 d"r,ii"ffi* pot ssion notice and for taking

¶21

sA3s4/2023

¶22

physical possession of the secured asset. Hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶25

i) whether the Applicant has established ana uarid" ground. for challenging the Possesslon Notice dt.08.06.2023 and- proceed"ings initiated by the Respondents before the cMM, Ranga Red"dy District, in crl.M.P.No.265/ 2023 for taking physical possession of the schedule property?

¶26

it) To what relieft

¶27

Point No.(i):-

¶28

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

¶29

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondents and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter, the Applicantcommitted default in repayment of outstanding dues.

¶30

But the specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing any demand notice, the Respondents straightaway issued possession notice and ssion notice was not published in two daily schedule property and the Respondents sion of the schedule property through

¶31

advo{he cop,4issione. "/;*1H of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. per contra, _ -, .'.^^ri R.Jf"l"^[l 5I'IAB2tpq J [4SJr6""l^',-*ll d that , , they have followed the

¶32

sA 3s4l2023

¶33

contemplated procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicant.

¶34

¶35

The Respondents in order to substantiate their contention, enclosed relevant material documents along with the counter filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondents issued demand notice dt.14.03.2023 to the Applicantu/s 13(2) of the Act demanding her to repay the entire outstanding dues within 60 days and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal receipts filed by the Respondents and the said notice was returned unserved and the Respondents published the said notice in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by thcm. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondents issued possessionnotice dt.08.06.2023 to the Applicant and the said possession notice was admittedly received by the Applicant. The said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondents and it was also published in Business Standard and Mana Telangana daily newspapers onl2.06.2023 as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondents. Thus the Respondentshave followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in taking possession of the secured asset.

¶36

After issuing possession notice dt.08.06.2023, the Respondents ings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 before CMM, taking physical possessionof the schedule property 265123. Ld.CMM, R.R. District was pleased to missioner for taking physical possession of the when the advocate commissioner issued notice U^T:tnfipa# directing her to vacate schedule property, the 4

¶37

sA354/2023

¶38

Applicant filed the present SA. As per the provisions of Section l4 of the SARFAESI Act, secured creditor can initiate proceedings before the concerned Chief Juridical Magistrate or District Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶39

1 1. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the possession notice issued by the Respondents is valid and so, the Respondentsare at liberty to proceed u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and there are no violations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.

¶40

Potnt No.(til:-

¶41

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed as there are no merits. consequently, the Interlocutory Appiications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶42

I3. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on thb the 5h dag of March, 2O25).

¶44

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OF'FICER

¶45

H
7^
0 5 HAn 2fl?5

Pajjuri Lasyapriya v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pajjuri Lasyapriya v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

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. Varalaxmi Saw Mill

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saraswathi Engineering Works

Singhu Chandra Kiran and another versus City Union Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Medical and General Stores

N v Subba Rao versus State Bank of India

Ms Sona Collections Rep Neeraja versus Union Bank of India