Allowed

Gujjari Shankariah v. Hero Fincorp Limited

DRT8 Jul 2025SA/481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's securitisation application, setting aside the respondent bank's possession notice. The bank was present ex-parte and failed to demonstrate compliance with due process under SARFAESI Act rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed; Possession Notice dated 23.10.2024 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 set aside.

Gujjari Shankariah versus Hero Fincorp Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE STHDAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.481 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. GujjariSanghaiah and Grand Son Company, Proprietor, GujjariArun Kumar, aged major, Occ: business, l-4-308/21/9, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Hero Fin Corporation Ltd, Represented by its Authorised officer, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant

Shri T. Vijay Kumar

Respondent Exparte

ORDER

The applicant filed Securitlsation Appllcation under Section 17 of the sation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the d. sion'hdtice dated 23.10.2024 issued by respondent bank ; €it 0⁰ rll[elGnnr \r, sr Act and without foilowing the rutes, provisions, iW- * , .. -O.i h+*^{regulatiqp?Jnd procedures as prescribedunder SARFAESIAct.}

¶17

(SA. No.481/2024)

¶18

The case in brief is that applicant herein availed loan for a sum of Rs.85.60 lakhs and was regular in repaying the instalments. It is submitted that the Applicant/ petitioner repaid a substantial sum of Rs.13.00 lakhs. Due to financial crisis, the petitioner could not repay some of the EMIS. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to follow the due process of law and issued the possession notice regarding schedule propefty of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder. The respondent bank failed to issue/ serve the possession notice and respondent bank also failed to affix the possession notice at the conspicuous place of the property and also failed to publish in two leading newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule B(1) and (2). Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by respondent bank under SARFAESI Act,2002.Hence the SA.

¶19

Notice served to Respondent. Respondent called absent and set exparte.

¶20

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶21

Now the point for consideration is

¶22

hether the applicants have established any valid grounds for ide the Possession Notice dated 23.10.2024issued by

¶23

the R bank against the schedule property? *

¶24

JUI il6

(SA. No.a8l./2024)

ii) To What Relieft

Point no.i)

As stated supra, the Respondent Bank remained ex-parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to the following of due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAEST Act,2O0Z and the Rules made thereunder while enforcing the security interest over the application schedule property by the Respondent Bank, the present Securitisation Application has to be allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt,23.10.2024 issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the application schedule property.

¶29

z. In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt.23.10.2024 issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Respondent Bank against the application schedule property.

¶30

B. In the result, SA.No.481/2024 is allowed. No costs.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court \rof^{Juty, 2025)}

¶33

,!a 8,, lld[ils
16. i!
W#"

¶34

sd/r (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Gujjari Shankariah v. Hero Fincorp Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujjari Shankariah v. Hero Fincorp 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

Banoth Ramesh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr Chukka Shashidhar versus Axis Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Palnati Vamsi Krishna

Smt Sangavarapu Kalyani versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maspelly Vittal versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.