Dismissed

Rajamouli Pidugu v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT3 Oct 2025SA/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A debtor challenged steps taken by a finance company to enforce security interest and take physical possession of property via a judicial commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held the proceedings followed due process and statutory rules. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed; no merit found in challenging the physical possession proceedings.

Rajamouli Pidugu versus Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.457./2024

¶4

Rajamouli Pidugu, S/o Rajalingam, aged 49 years, Occ: Earth Movers (M/s Shiva Shankar Earth Movers & Harvesters) R/o H.No. 1-55/8, Appaninapet, Peddapally, Karimnagar..

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

And

¶7

Sriram Finance Ltd. (Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.) Godavarikhani branch, Rep. by its Authorized signatory Mr.A. Kumara Swamy, Occ:Divisinal Recovery manager, R/o Karimnagar.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶10

Sri Anuesh C Desai Sri N.Raghuueer

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s. l7 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate

¶13

commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, peddapally in to declare the same as illegal and void. {.^?{iti Q

¶14

."," fr#.t" in brief, are that: nt flqitffif?n8 toa Rs.25 lakhs in the year 2019 from the dent and created mtr in respect of the schedule property Covid- 19, the Applicant could not pay Wr*+s

¶15

some instalments and so, the Respondent declared the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice u/s l3(2) dt.3O.O6.2O22. Subsequently, the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 on the lile of Ld.CJM, Peddapally and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Peddapally issued notice dt.22.O8.2O24 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule premises without following the due process. so, the said proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. Hence the SA.

¶16

J. The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed home loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. In view of the default committed by the Applicant, the Respondent initiated proceedings before the Ld.CJM, peddapally for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. The Respondent has followed the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in taking measures u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and there are no merits in the SA and accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

has established any ualid" grounds for by the Respondentfor taking phgsicat

¶20

' flbssessiod/ the scl#li propeftA through aduocate commis sioner? J^oto[rzozs bo what relief? ii %**9

¶21

Point IVo.(i):-

¶22

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

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without following due process of law and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid.

¶25

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶26

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said ,^{it is clear that the} Respondent issued demand notice

¶27

{q'.s6;Z )^{of the SARFAESIAct,2OO2} and sent the said rrj\ others through Regd. Post and the said notice

¶28

ed unserved as ced by the postal acknowledgements filed by

¶29

R0"J.m["p2[", ,: said notice was published in two daily rs. Thup is proper service of demand notice on the #11#

¶30

Applicant. when the Applicant failed to compry with the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.22.06.2023 u/s r3(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd' Post and the said notice was published in Telugu and Engrish daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was arso affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs fired by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule g(l )&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing possession notice to the Applicant.

¶31

As per the provisions of Section 14 of sARFAESI Act, 2o02, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Peddapally u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Peddapally after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.27.0g.2O24 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. The Appricant fi1ed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by him. So, the said notice dt.27.og.2024 issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶32

;

¶33

t2. So, cirgumstances, I am of the opinion that the .the^{Respondent on the file of the Ld.CJM,} SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical are quite legal and valid and strictly in with the s of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made th and no violations. So, I see no ground warranting int of tltis with the steps initiated by the Respondent for 4

¶34

taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶35

Potnt No.(ll)r

¶36

In the result, SA 457 /24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶37

consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, sharl stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶39

lDblated to tha P.s tran-scibed b hpr, cafteded., signed. a.ftd pronounced. ba me in the operL (rurt on this tlle ga oI Octobet, 2025).

¶40

sdl-
(c. coPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OT'FICER

¶41

TRUE COPY
DRT.I, H.TERABIlO.
^"",.W]rn,

Rajamouli Pidugu v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamouli Pidugu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

B Kalavathi and Others versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Takshay Enterprises

Baliram Tungar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kathoth Kunya

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddi Pavani

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddi Ravi