Dismissed

vootla vara parasd v. shriram finance limited

DRT24 Jun 2025SA/385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an applicant's appeal challenging eviction proceedings initiated by a respondent financial institution. The tribunal found the respondent followed statutory procedures under the SARFAESI Act and rules for issuing notices and taking possession of mortgaged property via Advocate Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The Securities Applications were dismissed and interlocutory applications pending were disposed of. No order as to costs.

vootla vara parasd versus shriram finance limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2C.25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.BAS/2C24

¶5

Mr. Votla Vara Prasad, Slo. E;zekat Raaju. Aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-109, Pragathi Nagar, Sultanabad, Karimn&gtr, Telangana.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Gundy, Chednnai-32.

¶9

Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

Si M. Arun.

Sri M. Indrasen.

-: ORDER:-

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the eviction notice dt.24.o9.2o24, issued by the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.M.P.No.97 of 2024 on the file of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Assi stant S ession s Judge, Peddapally.

¶15

The averments made by the Applicant in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by mortgaging the application sch and thereafter, he could not pay some loan installmen count has been classified as NPA by the out following Sec.13(2) & Sec.13(a) of publishing the Possession Notice in

¶16

fore the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶17

SA.No.i85/2024

¶18

Peddapalli, u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking physical possession of the application schedule property and the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Ld. CJM, has issued notice dt.24. O9.2O24 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property, which is not valid. Hence, the SA.

¶19

¶20

The Respondent filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application and contended that, the Applicant after availing the loan, committed default in repaying the loan amount and so the loan account has been classified as NPA. The Respondent issued Demand Notice on I7.O7.2O23 and the said notice was also published in English and Telugu newspapers d,ated,l2.l2.2O2 3. Thereafter possession Notice dt.07.05.2o24 was issued to the Applicant, which was returned unserved with postal endorsement as 'Refused. The Possession Notice was affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in English and Telugu newspapers in compliance of Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thus, a_ll the steps initiated by the Respondent are legal and vatid and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant has established any grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶24

ii) To what relieP

¶25

Point No.lilt

¶26

There is no that the Applicant availed Loan by mortgaging and thereafter committed default in repavmen{of4rlrrglfr7,'1r .

¶27

¶28

SA.No.385/2024

¶29

l. The contention of the Applicant is that, the Respondent without following the procedure laid down under Sec.13(2) & Sec.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property and so same is not legally valid. The contention of the Respondent is that, it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while issuing Demand Notice u/s.13(2) and Possession Notice u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicant'and so it is entitled to take physical possession of the schedule property.

¶30

The Respondent, in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, in issuing statutory notices to the Applicant, has filed the material documents. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent has sent Demand Notice dated 17.O2.2023 u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicant by registered post acknowledgement due and has also published the said Demand Notice in English and Telugu newspapers dated L2.12.2O23. Thereafter, the Respondent has issued Possession Notice on 07.05.2024 u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act and same was returned un-served with postal endorsement as 'Refused', which is deemed service. The Possession Notice was affixed on the application schedule property as depicted from the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Possession Notice was published in English and Telugu newspapers dated O8.O5.2O24 as evidenced by the copies of paper publications filed by the Respondent. The Respondent has approached the Ld. CJM, Peddapally, by filing Crl.M.P.No.97 12024 uls.14 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 prrysical4,aiffiits;6., trre schedule property are as per the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made

¶31

SA.No.385/2024

¶32

So, in the circumstances stated above, I hold that there are no merits in the SA and the Applicant has failed to establish any valid ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps taken by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate Commissioner. So, this point is answered against the Applicant.

¶33

Point No.(ti):-

¶34

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

¶35

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dicfated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed bg him, corrected", signed. and pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 24th dag of June, 2025).

¶37

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) Presiding Ofllcer

¶38

{4
JUiI 7:ll5
; fl zo
.9.ur
\riub,
$:::;ii;

vootla vara parasd v. shriram finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

vootla vara parasd v. shriram 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Madduri Someshwar Reddy

Ms Population Shoe Mart versus Ms Piramal Capital and Hosuing Finance

M s Mourya Automotives versus The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Mr Gunda Vishweshwar Rao versus State Bank of India

Sri Sandrapally Venkataiah versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

md azeez ahmed versus shriram finance limited