Dismissed

Kommineni Malleshwari v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

DRT1 Sept 2025SA/44/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the recovery respondent's initiation of proceedings to take physical possession of mortgaged property via an Advocate Commissioner. The Tribunal held the process, including notices and publication, was valid and compliant with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, granting no relief.

What did the court decide?

The security interest application was dismissed with no merits; interlocutory applications pending were disposed of.

Kommineni Malleshwari versus Shriram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DA-I'ED^-T'HIS'T[_IE 1ST DAY OF SEP'TEMI3ER, 2C^25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.4 4/ 2C^24

¶5

I . Smt.Kommineni Malleswari, W/ o Kommincni Vcnkanna, Aged 42 years, Occ:busincss, R/o II.NO.8-3 -169 I 60 I 27, Sl)R IIills, Ncar Govt. Iligh School, lndira Nagar, Phasc II, Borabanda, Ilyderabad-500 0lB

¶6

K.Vcnkanna, S/o K.Mallaiah, agcd 48 1,s21s, ()cc:ltusincss, R/o I I NO.8 3 16e l60 l'27 , SI)R IIills, Nr:ar Govt. tligh School, Indira Nagar, Phase II, []orabanda, Ilydcrabad-sOO Ol8

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

And.

¶9

l. Thc Authorized officer N{/s Sriram Finance Ltd.,

¶10

3-6-478,Sth floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, I{yderabad-5O0 029.

¶11

Thc Chicf Managcr, M/s Sriram F inan<:c Ll.d,,

¶12

6.-478, Stl. floor, Anand F)statc, Libcrtl, Road, I Iimayathnagar, I-lyderabad-500 029

¶13

.... Re.spondents

¶14

Counsel for the i J.Narendra Kumar Courtsel for the i M.lndrasert 1. 1'his applicati the u/s.l7 of thc SARF'AIISI Act, 2042, challengin b.y thc Rcspondcnts for taking *,,

¶15

physical possession of thc schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuanl. to the orders of Ld.III Addl.cMM, Hyderabad, and to deciare the same as illegal and void.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicants availed loan of Rs.2s lakhs from the 2"d Respondent by creating mortgage in respect- of the schedule property. Thereafter due to covid-19, the Applicants could not repay the loan dues and so, the loan accounr was classified as NpA and the Respondents issued demand notice dt.02.o5.2o22 to thc Applicants. Subsequently, the Rcspondents issued possession notice dI..13.04.2023 but the said noticc was not served on the Applicants and the same was not published in two leading newspapers and not affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondents straightaway initiated proceedings before the Ld.lll Addl.CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said Advocatc commissioner appointed by the Ld.lll Addl.cMM, Hyderabad visited the schedule property and issued notice dL.27.o1 .2024 to thc Applicants for vacaling the schedule property and so, the said noticc is illegal and liablc to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶18

.).Thc Respondents tiled their Rcply denying all the adverse allegations madc in thc SA and conl.ended that Applicants having availed loan from thc 2"d Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property, committed default in repaying the loan crues and so, the loan account was classified as N-!'}j-on 31.03.2021 . The lRespondents issued demand I notice dt.o|W\o?a ,'."'":5v+*r L ut rb,X\gI 7 2 of thc sARr,'AnsI Act, 2oo2 and the same was scrygcl :oh toh r h c'Appc;\pP l iQ{bli.1'hcrcaftr:r, the Respondents issued '/ f# t posscsirl%r 0.,"""ffioticcgr^not rⁱ^cc afiI:^dL;! k}³ .0^.O4 4 2oWS+.r,fuh^**.**2 tr hc App lt icants and the saicl notice *r" o{$hedlnt$fpffirs "du$n" same was affixed on the schedule nroner(\flH.. the proce.I"$i,hitiarcd by the Respondents u/s 14 of thc SA t. ,ooe-##'./ihe Ld.ilt Addl.cMM, Hyderabad for

¶19

l.aking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid. So there are no merits in the sA and accordingly, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

I{eard I-d. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶21

Nou' thc points that arisc for considcration are

¶22

uthether the Applicants haue estabrished" ana uarid ground.s for challenging4 the sreps initiateci by the l?esponrlents for taking physical posses.slo n of the scheciule properrpl through ad_uocate commissioner?

¶23

. To what relief ?

¶24

Point No.(i):

¶25

6' l)uring t.he coursc of argumcrrts, Lcl. counsel lor the Applicants and Ld. c<;unst:l for the Respondcnts rcilcratcd thcir rcspcctive versions as stated supra.

¶26

7 ' Thcrc is no disputc rcgarding thc lact that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and creal.ed mortgage in respect of the schedule property towards security for the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues. 'l'here is also no dispute regarding the receipt of the demand notice by the Applicants.

¶27

Thc specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule

¶28

8(l)(2) of Sccurity mcnt) Rulcs, 2OO2, the Respondents

¶29

straightaway, i, taking physical possession of the

¶30

schedulc p * missioner and So, the said

¶31

procccdings g"o,Fuf 'sil il,o :

¶32

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereundcr in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in taking steps u/s l4 of the SARF'AESIAct, 2OO2for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶33

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondents filed relevant material documents along with the lteply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 02.O5.2022, the Respondents issued demand notice to the Applicants and admittedly, the Applicants received the said notice. Thereafter, t-he Respondents issued possession notice df..13.04.2o23 u/s l3(a) of the Act and the said notice was sent to the Applicants througli Regd.post and thc said noticc was received by the Applicants as evidenccd by the postal acknowledgement filed by the Respondcnts.^'lhc said posscssion noticc was published in Telugu and Ilnglish daily newspapcrs as cvidcnccd by thc copies of paper publication filed by the Respondcnts and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photograph filed by the Respondents. Thus, the Respondents have scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule s,2OO2 in taking symbolic possession of thc schedule property.

¶34

As pcr l.hc provisions of Scction l4 ol SARI,'AFISI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of posscssion noticc u/s 13(4) of thc SARIfnIISI Act,2OO2, the secured crcditor is at libcrty to appr<>ach ttrc conct:rncd I)istricl. Magistrate or Chicl' .Judicial Magistrali: tbr taking physical possession of the secured asset. Irr thc instar..]tl: p_:asc, aftcr issuing de mand not.ice and possession notice to the . Appl{bantsg'the .'r. "! ':'...' 'iu.'.. ltespondents approached Ld.lll Addl.CMM, Ilydcrabq.d " lils la otlkre SAii$llis,l Act, 2oo2 for appointment of advocate ii :;+i! t:a: t'i$' l*),

¶35

commissio-gcr for taliihg physithl'1'possession of the schedule property. M r\fl[ , 1 I{3i&Err{ffi {ffp.{ml,r,lii;1aft-crilgoing through the record, appointed

¶36

i i ,a4,

¶37

aclvocar*,.'',.8 issioner and fhe,*A,d arlvocat.e commissioner visited the schedulc icc dt.2'/.O1 .2024 to the Applicants to 4

¶38

vacate the schedule property within l5 days from the date of the said notice' So, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property are perfectly legal and valid.

¶39

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated .by the Respondents before the Ld.III Addl.cMM, Ilyderabad u/s 14 of the SARITAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property arc quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with thc provisions of SARFAITSI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAI.TSI Act,2o02. Accorclingly, this point is answered in favour of the Rcspondcnts and against. the Applicants.

¶40

Point No.(ii):-

¶41

Ir-r thc rcsulr, SL 44124 is dismissr:d s thcrc are no merits.

¶42

Conscquently, thc Int.crlocutory App tions, pcnding if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to c partics concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.S transcibed by her, corrected, siqned" and. oJ'Septenber, 2O25).

¶45

rtced by me in the open courl on this the l"t daA

¶46

01stPffi *

¶47

TRU COPY ff,,s:

¶48

sd/ - (c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kommineni Malleshwari v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommineni Malleshwari v. Shriram 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils

Korutla Sujatha versus Telangana Grameena Bank