Applicant challenged an eviction notice under the SARFAESI Act claiming defects. The court found the respondent followed statutory procedures and rules, including publication in newspapers, and issued the notices validly.
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2C25
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.379/ZOZ4
Mr. Azeez Ahmed, S/o. Khalleq Ahmed, Aged 55 years, R/o. Thukata Maddikuntla, Peddapally, Telangana.
Applicant.
Versus
M/s. Shriram Finance Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South phase, Industrial Estate, Gundy, Chednnai-32.
Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent
Si M. Arun.
Sri M. Indrasen.
-.ORDER:-
Notice The Respondent has initiated steps the Ld. Chief Magistrate, Peddapally, u/s.14 of the e"{ r$. possession of the application schedule
to.No.379/2024
,
property and the Advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld. cJM, has issued notice dt.21.O9.2024 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property, which is not valid. Hence, the SA.
Point No.(il:-
- ..,t/or{ olusffippr is that, the Demand Notice and the 9$.,.{\ oticei ssued.5...bf: Respondent are defective and so the :{:' }r 4- ir,,,',lli ' i rr.. ,. :l : , :.,ii!:'..].:;.: ^".-':,,;, "';is:1,ir'-," ';i:;"'
5A.N0.379/2024
Respondent is not entitled to takephysical possession of the schedule property. The contention of the Respondentis that, it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down underthe SARFAESIAct and the Rules made thereunder while issuing DemandNoticeand PossessionNotice to the Applicant and so it is entitled to takephysical possession of the schedule property.
The Respondent, in order to establish that ithas scrupulouslyfollowed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, in issuing statutory notices to the Appticant, has hled the material documents. Asper thesaid documents, it is clear that the Respondent has issued Demand Noticeon 3O.O1.2O24 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and same was received by the Appticant as evidenced by the Postal Acknowledgement Card. Thereafter, the Respondent has issued Possession Notice on 07.O5.2O24 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI and same was received by the Applicant as evidencedby the Postal Acknowledgement Card. The Possession Notice was affixedon the application schedule property as depicted from the copiesof photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, the Possession Notice was published in 'lndia Mail' and 'Mana Telangana' newspapers dated O8.05.2024 as evidenced by the copies ofpaperpublications filed by the Respondent. The Respondent has approached the Ld. CJM, Peddapatly, by fiting Crl.M.P.No.96 12024 u I s.l4 of the SARFAESI Act and the Ld. CJM was pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. So, all the steps taken by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the scheduleproperty are as per the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder.
W*-f'
SA.No.379/2024
Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner. So, this point is answered against the Applicant.
Point No.(il):-
(Dctated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed. bg him, corrected., signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 24th daA of June, 2O2S).
sd/(G. coPrcHAND) Presiding Officer
ffi<br>24Jtlltzo6 :
;
F?
W,@
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant established grounds to set aside proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the demand and possession notices issued by the respondent were defective or legally valid.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Azeez Ahmed
M/s. Shriram Finance Limited
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
