Dismissed

mitaigharabdulrawoof v. shriramfinancelimited

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/527/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought to quash an auction notice under the SARFAESI Act, alleging procedural irregularities in NPAs and enforcement. The Tribunal held that irregular payment justified NPA classification and possession via advocate commissioner was lawful, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications pending closed; no order as to costs.

mitaigharabdulrawoof versus shriramfinancelimited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- II AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025}

¶2

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

¶3

Securitization^{Application No'527OF 2023}

¶4

[4itaighar^{Abudul Rawoof} S/o lvlitaigha^{r KhajaJuussain} Age about⁶⁵ Years,^{R/o H.No.17-82} Near Gouousia^Jewellers Near Temple^{Main Bazar, DharmavaranTown} Sri Satya^{Sai District}

¶5

.......APPllcant.

¶6

Versus The Authorized^Officer Sriram Finance^Limited Branch Office^{D.No. 19-4-12} IPR ComPlex,^{Gutti Road} AnanthaPuram^District

¶7

Counsel for^{the Applicant : Mr'B' Vikram} Counsel^for Respondent^{: Mr'M' Indrasen}

¶8

-:^g-B-D-qB:-

¶9

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement^{of Security InterestAct,2Oo2(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to^{quash the notice under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of Security} Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2OO2"Rules" hereinafter)and e-} auction sale^{notice dated 2!.77,202.3fixing auctionon 28't2'2023in} respect of^{the applicationscheduleproperty'}

¶10

The case of^{the applicantbriefly, is that he availed housing loan} from respondent^{and had beenpayingmonthly instalments regularly'} Without^{givingtime account was declared as NPA against RBI norms'} without lssuing^{noticesunder Rules 4'4( 1)'(2)' (2A)'(B)and} possession notice under^{Rule 8(1) and4nule 8(6) noticerespondent} /Y,,e

¶11

Page 2 of3

¶12

SA No.s27 /2023

¶13

issued the e-auction sale notice. Valuation was not obtained as per Rule 8(5). There is atso violation of Rutes 8(7) and 9(1). Hence the SA to set aside the measures against the schedule property.

¶14

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant availed housing loan of Rs.50 lakhs by executing loan documents and mortgage of application schedule property as security. There are guarantors also. Due to failure to pay monthly instalments regularly, the account was classified as NpA on 05.06.2021 accorOing to nAt guidelines, The demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 25.09.2021 was served and published. Since the amount was not paid, the respondent approached the learned CJM_Cum_principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram by flling Crl.Mp No.237 of 2022 and the advocate commissioner appointed therein. After receiving the actual possession of the property, respondent issued e_auction sale notice. The applicant paid two instalments out of the three as per conditional order passed by the Tribunal and failed to pay 3d instalment. The SA is liable to be dismissed as the respondent has followed due procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules thereunder.

¶15

No representation for the applicant. Learned counsel for respondent reported no oral arguments but filed written a rgu ments. Perused the same along with the material documents brought on record,

¶16

Now, the points that arise for consideration are :_ (i) Whether the appticant made out any valid ground to set aside the measures of th.e respondeit ,iaZiti" iit.."zooz against the application schedule prop",tv, ii pii"i iri

¶17

(ii) ro what retief? fu,*g

Page 3 of³

sA No.52712023

Point No.(i):

The impugned^{auction on 28't2'2023 did not take place' Hence} the averments^{pertainingto the same needno consideration'}

¶22

The statement of^{account reflects the irregularityin paymentof} instalments by^{the applicant' Hence classificationof accountas NPA} cannot be^{questioned.As per postaltrack reports, the demandnotice} was delivered on^{applicant and others' The respondent took physical} possession through advocate^{commissioner appointed in Crl'MP} No,23712022 by^{learned C]M-Cum-PrincipaIASSiStantSessions Judge,} Ananthapuramu.^{vide letter dated2L.02.2023, the applicant} confirmedthefactoftakingoverofactualpossessionofsecured asset by the^{commissioner. I find no illegalityin the action of the} respondent. Accordingly^{SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶23

Point No.(ii):

¶24

In the result,^{the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶25

Consequently, the^{InterlocutoryApplicationspending' if any'} shall stand^{closed'No orderas to costs'}

¶26

1o'communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the^{officialwebsite.}

¶27

(Typed to my dictotion by the^{Ps, coftected,signed andpronounced by me in the opencourt on this} the 26th doy of August,^2025).

¶28

'Nre

¶29

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

mitaigharabdulrawoof v. shriramfinancelimited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mitaigharabdulrawoof v. shriramfinancelimited

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited