Dismissed

Ms Theja Traders Rep by P Prakash Babu v. Hdb Financial Services Limited

DRT26 Sept 2025SA/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant sought to set aside a possession notice issued by the respondent bank due to alleged procedural lapses. The court found no valid grounds to quash the measures, confirming strict compliance with statutory procedures.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed and consequent interlocutory applications were closed. No order as to costs.

Ms Theja Traders Rep by P Prakash Babu versus Hdb Financial… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 26TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER,2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B'Com, L'LB(Hons)' t'l A} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

Securitlzation^{ApplicationNo 49 OF 2024}

¶4

Theja Traders Rep. by its^Proprietor Sri Paleti^{Prakash Babu} Aqe about⁴⁹ Years S7o VenuqoPal^{Naidu, Occ:Business} R/o H.No.713618,^{NearApollo Hospital} niagonda,^{Chittoor District517 129}

¶5

.......ApPlicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

HDB Financial^{Services Limited} Reo. bY its^{Authorized Officer} - sitlateO at^{D.No.22-231l1,1s' Floor} ehaovataksnmi^{Complex, Kattamanchi} ii.r6!ti noao^{upstairs, Bajaj show Room} chitioor District^{and also at 4"' Floor} iemalatha^{Mansion, 111 & 112 SR Nagar} Hyderabad

¶8

....Res?ondent.

¶9

Counsel^{for the AP\licants : Mr' D'} Raghavulu : Mr.C. Viswanath Counset^{for Res?ondent}

¶10

-IORDER:-

¶11

1.^{The Appllcant filed the present securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the^{Securitization and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} EnforcementofSecuritylnterestAct,2oo2(hereinafterreferredtoas "the Act")^{to set aside the action of respondent to takephysical} porr"..ion of^{the application schedule properties pursuantto} advocate^{commissloner notice dated24'Of '?O24 inCl'MP} No.t43l2o23^{on the file of learnedchief Judicial *"rff':l${m}

(-/

'"'

PaEe 2 of 4

sA No.49/2024

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittore in pursuance of possession notice dated 08.09.2023 under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002.

¶17

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed mortgage loan of Rs.80 lakhs and Rs.1g lakhs in 2019 and repaid Rs.18 takhs loan. Due to health reasons associated with other reasons appticant could not run business hence unable to pay monthly instalments. The outstanding amount is Rs.6,09,035/_ till 05.01.2024 as per statement of account. Without serving demand notice, possession notice and without publishing and affixing the possession notice as per Rules, respondent obtained Warrant for taking physical possession of the property. The description of the property is shown as prots instead of G+2 building. NpA classification is not as per law. Hence the SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that Rs.6,09,035/- claiming to be outstanding is only instalments over due amount and not the total outstanding amount. The borrower committed default despite repeated fequests and demands hence account became NpA on 02.02.2023 as per RBI guidetines. Demand notice dated 19.06.2023 u/s 13(2) was served on applicant and co_borrowers. As no payment was made within 60 days, the respondent issued possession notice dated 08.09.2023 u/s L3(4) of the Act sent by registered post, affixed on secured asset and pubrished in .The Hans India, and 'Prajasakthi' Engrish and Terugu newspapers on 13.09.2023. Thereafter approached learned N o. 1 43 or 2 o 2 3 seeki n e ", *, r:# r'/:r'"t ::::: iLHl;l "?::: accordingly advocate commissioner has been appointed who in turn issued vacate notice. The respondent company has stricUy followed the due procedure of law and hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. ^fiv<\9

,, z{_.-L.\lq

Page 3 of4

SA No.49l2024

Representative of learned^{counsel for the applicant reported} orders may be Passed based on records.

¶23

Heard learned^{counsel for the respondent company and perused} the material documents^{placed on record.}

¶24

Learned counsel for^{the respondent company submittedhis} version as in the reply^{statement.Whllereferringto the documents} filed along with^{the reply statem'3ntas proof of strict complianceof} due^{procedure as prescribed in the Act and the Rulesof 2002'learned} counsel sought^{for dismissalof the SA'}

¶25

The^points for^{consideration are as follows : -}

¶26

i) Whether the^{applicant made out any valid ground to} quash the measures of^{the respondent against the SA}

¶27

ichedule ProPertY,^as PraYed^for?

¶28

ii) To what^relieQ

¶29

Point No.(i):

¶30

The^{proprietor of the applicantproprietary concern admits of} availing of^{credit facility from the respondent companyand} committing^{defaultin rePayment as against the agreed terms' Hence} NPAclassificationisnotquestionableApplicant'savermentabout outstanding^{amount as only Rs 6,09,035/- is totally false becauseas} per the statement^{of accountfiled by the applicant himself the said} amount^{is only instalment overdue amount'}

¶31

proof along with^reply 9. The respondent^{companyfiled sufficient} possession notice^and statement,^{as to serviceof demandnotice'} As oer Sec.14 of^the affixture and^{publication of possessionnotice'} N,-"

¶32

pate 4 of4

¶33

5A No.49/2024

¶34

Act, 2002 the respondent being secured creditor is entiued to take action for taking physical possession of the secured asset. I find no deviation in the procedure followed by the respondent.

¶35

It is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent including the action to take physical possession of the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Point No,(ii)l

¶37

In the resutt, the Securitization Application Fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

LZ. Consequenuy, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any. shall stand closed.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶41

(Typed to nry dictotion by the p5 corrccud, siqned ond prcnounced by me in the open court on this the 2d doy oJ August, 2O2S)

¶42

,rJry-osd (RitidHwAR l(orHE) PRESIDING OTPTCEN

Ms Theja Traders Rep by P Prakash Babu v. Hdb Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Theja Traders Rep by P Prakash Babu v. Hdb Financial Services 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vasundheara Opticals

Sampangi Mallesh versus Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Jude Vincent versus Piramal Capital

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Ozo Agri Care Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Nidhi Carbonic Gases

Axis Bank Ltd. versus White Water Enterprises