Applicant challenged the respondent's attempt to take physical possession of mortgage property under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal examined compliance with Section 13 and 14, including notice requirements under Rule 8. It found the respondent followed statutory procedures and dismissed the challenge. The application was dismissed.
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.IAT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.369,/2C23
Smt. Chintapatla Rama Devi, W/o CH.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 47 years, flat No.102, SV Shelters, plor No.57lA, Road No. 12, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
. . . Applicant
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Ground floor, 5-9- 194, Chirag Ali Lane, P.B. No. 165 Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized ofhcer
.... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondent
Si B. Sreeniuasa Reddg Sri R.Rajendra Prasad
.:ORDER:-
One M/s Lahari Properties availed loan from the.Respondent whereas the Applicant hereil "E.;5,,Afuqtor and the officers of the Respondenr took signatuieffiof iicant on blank printed documents. Th e-,e- , o tf ficials o $re ent visited the schedule property ana iili#-"a[ffiUflft{S.bt"*lh advocate commissioner
fuh,,,,us# 3:v6#ifr
warrant in Crl.M.P.No.1373l23 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and affixed the copy of the warran t dt.ro.or.2o23 on the outer door of the schedule property. But demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant. The Applicant came to know that the legal heir of the deceased guarantor Sri D.Srinivasa Rao filed SA 249 122 challenging the auction proposed to be conducted by the Respondent and as well as the steps initiated by the Respondent before the Ld.XIVAddl.CMM, Hyderabadfor taking physical possession of the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal and unwarranted. Hence the SA.
.)The Respondent filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that M/s Lahari properties availed loan from the Respondent and the Appticant stood as guarantor and created mortgage against the schedule property. As the borrower committed default in repaying the loan dues, the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 13.12.20i8 and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 18.03.2019 and the said possession noticewas affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers. Hence the proceedings initiated u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before Ld. Ld.XIVAddl.CMM, Hydeiabadfor appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid. So there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
Polnt No.lil:-
Rules made thsr'e1 er in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applichnt andi also g steps u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for
$alingpr,y"iLil po"". to* of the schedule property. 0{rtl02m5
i;
S6o,*-*d
.'. "d !? L.,c. 'r- r- '-',',i ',r(;*:r.,,,^,ru"l .- ::37.j1
Point No.(fi):-
disposed of. No order as to costs.
t#;':fr!l'r:t;i:s transcribed bs her, corrected, sisned and pronounced bs me in the open court on thi.s the 4h d.as
.tit'
n.
//#' .i.
r.:. . -) B
*
ii i; 'k tl!i7
'tiu 0t ,rL.L,tr,tn r- qri. J
1{r1
i3',
t'.%.
sv..v/
sd/(e. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
dIBK
,#li';-ffi,ilE"'o'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether valid grounds exist to challenge the steps taken by the Respondent for physical possession of the schedule property through an advocate commissioner.
Whether the initiation of proceedings for physical possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was in violation of the mandatory requirement to serve demand and possession notices.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Chintapatla Rama Devi
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation
Gummadi Godichand
Gopichand
G.C.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
