Dismissed

Sousheel v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DRT4 Jun 2025SA/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Sale Application filed under the SARFAESI Act challenged a possession notice issued by a secured creditor via an advocate commissioner. The Debts Recovery Tribunal upheld the creditor's compliance with statutory notice requirements and dismissed the application as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Application was dismissed as devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Sousheel versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4T'T DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.47/2024

¶5

Mr. SousheelNyalapatla, S/o LakshmaiahGoud, Aged 35 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.3-3 12, Azad Road, Bhongir Town, YadadriBhuvanagiri District

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Sriram Finance Ltd., Regd.office No. 123, Angaapa Street, Chennai And also Administrative Office: Office No.3-6-478, 46 f7oor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-s0O 029.

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Si Praueen Kumar Challa Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.lndrasen

¶11

:ORDER:.

¶12

1 .
This application is filed by the Applicant u/ s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for
taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the
ursuant to the orders of Ld.FAC.CJM, Bhongir,
illegal and arbitrary.
f fi,
{,15 B<br>) T
lication, in brief, are that:
$"="tr$.1Mf
l%4r ,.,;,!!i;
\"-a-''E -d:t' ...1- 4
\.cja,"i;, -..-iir'.,a.:.._,./
+::,it:j1'{:#.

¶13

sA 47 /2024

¶14

The Applicant ava ed housing loan from the Respondent in the year 2079 and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and the Applicant was regular in payment of instalments. Suddenly, on os 'o2 .2024, the officials of the Respondent along with advocate commissioner came to the schedule property and threatened the Applicant to vacate the schedule property with immediate effect. The Respondent has not served any demand notice or possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not pubrished in two leading newspapers and the said notice was also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

3' The Respondentfired Repry by denying arl the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA w.e.f. o8.o1.2o2o. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O9.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 calling upon him to repay the due amount within 60 days. But the Applicant has not complied with the said demand notice, so, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.06.04.2023 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent approached Ld. CJM, Bhongirby filing crl.M.P.No.79 /2023 and obtained orders for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedure property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice dt. 10.0 r.2024 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder for taking physical possession of the schedule property and there are no deviations. Hen merits'in the SA and the SA is liable to be ,F .,] 0 { JUil t&5 htu

¶16

sA 47 /2024

¶17

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

¶18

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶19

WlettLer the Applicant has established. ang ualid ground.s for challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possesslon of the schedule propertg u/s 14 of the SARFIIESI Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Bhongir?

¶20

ii) To uhat relieJ?

¶21

Polnt No.lllt

¶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 rhat the Applicant ava ed 1oan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. The present SA is filed when the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physicar possession of the schedure property through advocate commissioner.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that even though, the Applicant is regular in paying the loan instalments, without issuing demandnotice and possession notice under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Ru'les made thereunder, the Respondent Ld.CJM, Bhongir for appointment of

¶25

taking physical possession of the schedule are illegal.

¶26

lIlll . .,....ii.j

¶27

sA 4712024

¶28

Per contra, the Respondent contended that the Respondent has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Ruies made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicant and in taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶29

To substantiate their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O9.2o22uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the same was received by the Appiicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent. It is not the case of the Applicant that subsequent to the receipt of the said demand notice, he paid any amount to the Respondent.So, the Respondent issued pcissession Notice dt.06.04.2}23 and the said notice was also sent through Regd. Post and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements liled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and also aflixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly issued demand notice and possession notice and also complied with Rule 8( 1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent filed Statement of Account rclating to the loan account of the Applicant which clearly indicates that the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues which necessitated the Respondent to declare the loan account as NPA. After issuance of pos se-g{qg4o1.ice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as per the 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the secured creditor the concerned District Magistrate or Chief 8,0,",,, appointment of advocate commissioner for

¶30

sA 47 /2024

¶31

taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Ld.CJM, Bhongir and the Ld. CJM after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner admittedly issued notice d,t.lo.or.2o24to the Applicant for vacating the schedure property and after receiving the said notice, the Applicant filed the presenr SA.

¶32

so, considering alr the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld.CJM, Bhongir, u/s 14 of the SARPAESI Act, 2OO2 lor taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite 1egar and strictry in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and there are no viorations. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶33

Polnt No,(it):-

¶34

In the result, SA 47 12024 is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶35

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

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

P.s transcribed bu her, coftected., signed. dnd pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4rh

¶38

0 4 Juilzu5

¶39

sd/IRUETCOPY ^ (c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER Ll afly# DRT-|, HYDEliAfr,trD.

Sousheel v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sousheel v. Sriram City Union 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mergu Yellappa versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Kotalvar Srikanth

Tandra Impex Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Gssmr Energy Private Limited versus Union Bank of India

Rajasekhar Kotte versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited