Allowed

Seela Suri Babu v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

DRT14 Aug 2025SA/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Securitization Tribunal allowed the applicant's petition to set aside the respondent's possession notice and subsequent measures. The court held that the respondent failed to communicate reasons within fifteen days for rejecting the borrower's objections, violating Section 13(3)(A) of the 2002 Act, vitiating further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice dated 22.07.2024 and all subsequent measures against the scheduled property set aside.

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE14THDAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.com, L'LB(Hons'),M A} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.49OF 2025}

¶5

N4r. Seela Suri Babu S/o Jalna Raju H.No.4-2012, Narasimha^Nagar Mallapur, Uppal Ranga Reddy^Distrlct Telangana - 500076

¶6

...... .Applica^nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorized Officer Can Fin Homes^Ltd 31-11-114,^{Plot No.2} 1't Floor, Sri Nilayam RTC Colony, L.B.^Nagar Hyd era ba d^- 5000 74

¶9

... ResPondent

¶10

Counsel for the^APPlicant : Mr. T. Vijay^Kumar Counsel for^Res?ondent : Mr. B. Srinivasa^Rao

¶11

-:9-BSEB:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as} "the Act") to set^{aside all the measures of the respondentincluding} taking physical^{possessionof the application scheduleproperty} pursuant to advocate commissioner^{letterdated20.O7.2025in CrI MP} No.l4O/20245 on the file of^{learned Chief JudicialMagistrate,} Medchal.

¶13

The case of the appiicant,^{in brief, ls that he availed housing} loan of Rs.25 lakhs in^{2023 from the resq9ndent.} Jhough^paidback /ffilott(-/

¶14

Page 2 of4

¶15

SA No.49l2025

¶16

substantial amounts. due to health reasons and business loss, applicant could not pay some instalments. Without responding to the objections dated 27.06.2024 to the demand notice, respondent issued possession notice u/s 13(4) but not served and proceeded to initiate action for taking physical possession of the property. Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the loan account of applicant became NPA on 30.04.2024 and hence Securitization proceedings were initiated by issuing demand notice dated 02.05.2024 for Rs.26,03,072/- plus interest. The applicant orally took clarification and thereafter did not come forward to clear the amount and continued the account to be NpA. Receipt of the possession notice dated 22.07.2024was acknowledged by the applicant, the possession notice was affixed on secured asset and published in'Telugu prabha, and 'The Indian Main' newspapers. Further it approached the learned CJM for appointment of advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the property. The SA is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.^perused the written arguments filed by for respondent and the material brought on record.

¶19

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent reiterated their respective version as in the application and reply statement. ko*t-

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

SA No.4912025

¶22

The^points for consideration^{are as follows : -} i) Whether the appticant^{madeout any valid ground to} quash the measures of the^{respondent against the} application schedule^{propertyas prayed for?}

¶23

ii) To what relief?

¶24

Point No.(i):

¶25

Admittedly, the applicant^{availed housing loan and committed} default. Hence the classification^{of loan account cannot be termedas} illegal. Vide^para 9 of the^{applicationthe applicant stated that after} demand notice^{he visitedthe respondent seeking time for repayment} of overdue amount and^{also explained the facts. It is also statedthat} the respondent has^{assured that he can pay some amount and will} regularize the account^{and said acceptancewill be intimated in a few} days but failed to communicate^{anything.Vide para 3 of the reply} statement, the respondent^{also admits of applicant'sissuing} objections dated 21,06.2024^{to the demandnotice, his visit to} respondent and issuing^{oral clarificatlon' Sec.13(34) of the Act, 2002} which reads as hereunder:-

¶26

"tG-A) If, on receipt of^{the notice under sub-section(2), the} borrower makes any^{representation or raisesany obiection, the} secured creditor shall^{consider such representationor objection} and if the secured creditor^{comes to the conclusion that such} representation or obiection^{is not acceptableor tenable,he} shall communicate within fifteen^{days of receipt of such} representation or objection^{the reasons for non-acceptance of} the represe,ntation or^{obiection to the borrower:}

¶27

B. As mandated under^{Sec.13(34) of the Act, the respondentwas} bound to communicate^{reasons for non-acceptance of objections} within fifteen days, The^{respondent is not denying receipt of} objections dated 21.06.2024^{rather itadmitted knowledge of} objections vide^para 3 of^{reply statement as observedsuprat but}

/l%ooo (-/

Page 4 of 4

SA No.4912025

evidently it failed to follow Sec.13(3A) of the Act,2002. Once Sec.13(34) is not followed, all further proceedings shall stand vitiated. Accordingly SA deserved to be allowed.

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

In the result, the Securitization Application is allowed by setting the possession notice dated 22.07.2024 and all subsequent measures against the application schedule property.

¶34

However this order does not preclude the respondent from initiating fresh steps against the secured asset stricUy in accordance with law.

¶35

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶36

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

¶37

(Typed..to my dictotion by the Ps, corrected, signed dnd pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14'h doy ot' Auqust, 2025).

¶38

Z/\1-.=ur>q (RAfft'SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Seela Suri Babu v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seela Suri Babu v. Can Fin Homes 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

M/s. Ayurda Buildcon Rep. by Managing Partner Mr. Kalikiri Sriniketh Reddy versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Utukuru Narendera Kumar Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Subhan Polymers Rep by Its Proprietor

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Balaji Granites

Icici Bank Limited versus Maragoni Shravan Kumar Goud

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Om Namashivaya Enterprises