Dismissed

Maspelly Vittal v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT8 Jul 2025SA/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal disposed of the application challenging the Respondent's steps to take physical possession of the mortgaged property. The Court observed that the Respondent had issued statutory notices and sought assistance from the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with Section 14, dismissing the appeal and holding the proceedings legal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned setttement application SA.5712024 was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Maspelly Vittal versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2C^25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.5712024

¶5

Mr.MaspellyVittal, Plot No.37&42, H.No.4-3-t l58l8a, Sy.No.216lll3, Rajeev Nagar Colony, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad-sO4 103.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer 2Ol, 2ndfloor, Krishe Sapphire, Near Image Hospital, IIi-Tech City Main Road, I{yderabad-50O 081.

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

Sn C. Sreedhar Sri Hari Prasad Podila

¶13

-.ORDER:-

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, Nirmaland to declare the same as,illeg4l,And void.

¶15

-ur'. .^... : , n .. ,? ,i\ Ll - .^.r . ri , .: f. "-,7r1, ... i ..t . a Thc avermibiits avermibiits made:in the apHi;apHi; in brief, are that:brief, are that:are that:that: ;.^..ts Respondent by creating mortgage tn " a$l4an t Evtitgglto26fromrt rty and due to disturbance in ::r:::ftffi*;,i_*f"# instalments and So, the loan

¶16

Thc avermibiits avermibiits made:in the apHi;apHi; in brief, are that:brief, are that:are that:that:

¶17

account was classified as NPA.Without issuing demand notice and possession notice, straightaway the Respondent is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property though advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nirmal and the said advocate commissioner issued notice dt.08.02.2024 to the Applicant to vacate the schedule premises. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafterfailed to repay the loan dues. So, the loan account was classified as NPA and accordingly, Respondent issued demand notice dt.24.o8.2o22 and the said notice was also published in two leading newspapers and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.08.12.2022 to the Applicant and the said notice was received by the Applicant and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in Business Standard and Nava Telangana daily newspapers.Thus the Respondent has strictly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in taking possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

: for consideration are

¶22

has established anA ualid grounds for iruitiated by the Respondent for taking of the schedule property through aduocate

¶23

ii. To what relief ?

¶24

Point^jVo.(i):

¶25

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶26

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without servingdemand notice and possession notice, the Respondent straightaway, initiated steps for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through advocate commissioner without following due process of law.

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, Rules made thereunder in issuing statutory notices to the Applicant and also in taking steps u/s t4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶29

In order to r..4r-r':.1:: substantiate^jrqr{ their contention, theRespondent filed relevant ma with the Reply filed by them. As per the said the Respondent issued demand notice

¶30

ttrIz*.oa zozffits tslzfr'ofltne sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice

¶31

photographs filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.o8. r2.2o22 and sent the same to the Appricant through Regd. Post but the same was got refused by the Applicant and so, there is deemed service of possession notice on the Applicant. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2oo2 in taking symbolic possession of the schedule propertSr.

¶32

r0 As per the provisions of section 14 0f SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuing possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for 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, Nirmal u/s 14 0f the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld. cJM, Nirmal after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dt.08.02.2024 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property and admittedly, the said notice was received by the Applicant. So, the said notice issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶33

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 'n+r,frr :iatedff$ the Respondent bank before the Ld.CJM, for taking physical I^{H:Xq, li I ut' iu,s'. iffii,:} T:::^:,J'":. Tff^. legal and strictly in isions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made

¶34

thereunder and there are no violations. answered in favour of the Respondent Bank

¶35

Accordingly, this point is and against the Applicant.

¶36

Point No.(ii):-

¶37

In the result, sA57 12024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶38

i3. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed by her, corrected-, signed- and pronounced. bg me in the open aurt on this the gh daA of Julg,2025).

¶41

sd/(G. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

B 0 JUI 206

¶43

WW,

¶44

Maspelly Vittal v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maspelly Vittal v. LIC Housing 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

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

Gujjari Shankariah versus Hero Fincorp Limited