Dismissed

Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain v. Hdb Financial Services

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/67/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the applicant's securitisation application challenging the respondent bank's initiative to take physical possession of mortgaged property via an Advocate Commissioner under the SARFAESI Act, holding the procedure followed was valid.

What did the court decide?

The application is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of. No order as to costs.

Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain versus Hdb Financial Services — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 7rH DAy OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.67 OF 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain, S/o Syed Amjed Hussain, aged 42 years, Male, occ: business, R/o l2-2-4t9, Near Choti Masjid, Gudi Malkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

HDB Financial Services, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad Represented by its authorised officer

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant

Respondent

Shri A. VUay Kumar

Sri C. Viswanath

ORDER

The applicant filed securitisation Application under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Act) challenging the steps initiated by the possession of , l+. the schedule property^',tbitrgh u nder SARFAESI Act. il :) ii rtl irt ?1 "u-- '.\vY Il !.( l,

¶17

(SA.No.6712024)

¶18

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶19

The applicant availed housing loan from the respondent bank to a tune of Rs.57.00 lakhs in the year 2019 by creating mortgage in respect of schedule property. Due to financial problems, the applicant could not pay some instalments, so the respondent bank declared the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the same was not served on applicants. Without issuing any possession notice to the applicant and without publishing and affixing the possession notice, the respondent bank approached the Hon'ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad filing Crl.Mp.88/2024 for appointment of Advocate commissioner and obtained orders for appointment of Advocate commissioner. Thereafter the Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated L7.02.2024 to the applicant directing the applicant to hand over the physical^possession of schedule property. The respondent bank has not followed the procedure laid down under SARFAESI act and Rules made thereunder in issuing notices to the applicant and also for taking physical possession of the SA schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶20

The Respondent bank reply applicant having availed respondent bank committed default in repaying th account was classified c*

¶21

as NPA on 04.04. bank issued demand notice SARFAESI Act on

¶22

(sA.No.6712024)

¶23

23.06.2023 to the applicant. The said notice was received by him. The said demand notice was also published in Business standard and Mana Telangana newspapers on 06.07.2023. Thereafter the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 08.0g.2023 to the applicant and the same was received by the applicant. The said possession notice was published in Business Standard English daily and Mana Telangana Telugu daily on L2.09.2023. The possession notice was affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the respondent bank approached the Hon,ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of schedule property. The Ld Hon,ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad was pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate commissioner issued notice dated 17.02.2024 to the applicant directing him to vacate the schedule property, The applicant is not entitled to claim any relief and the sA is liable to be dismissed .

¶24

Heard the arguments.

¶25

Now the point for consideration is

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for
challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical
possession of the schedute'::..propefi through Advocate
,'J".'iil..
commissioner ? : ';f;i.<br>: .-.i ' lt,'ii1
ii) ro what ReFf 0 t rjl,T Afr " !.i!
i'.il 1!l
ti..-.,.1
." iirt
ii'i:-'''i'L 'r,r,ffi,r ...,,,. . f:i;'s;6''i- ':"'
.,*,!MY
:

¶27

(SA.No.67l2024)

¶28

Point no.i)

¶29

During the course of arguments, the counsel for the applicant and respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant availed loan from the respondent bank and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan amount. So, the loan account was classified as NpA. The contention of the applicant is that the respondent bank without issuing demand notice and possession notice straight away initiated proceedings before Hon'ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of schedule property and so the steps initiated by the respondent bank through Advocate commissioner are liable to be dismissed.

¶31

The contention of the respondent bank is that the respondent bank has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing statutory notices to the applicant and so it is entitled to take physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner as per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

¶32

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereun demand notice and possession notice, enclosed th'e: to the reply statement filed by it. As per the,.,said doc that on 23.06.2023, the i-., 0l respondent applicant and the same

¶33

(SA.No.67l2024)

¶34

was received by the applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement. In fact the said demand notice was published in English and Telugu newspapers as evidenced by the paper publication. After issuing demand notice, the respondent served the Possession notice to the applicant and the same was published and affixed as contemplated under Rule 8(10 and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thus there is valid service of demand notice and possession notice on the applicant.

¶35

After serving Possession notice to the applicant, the respondent bank approached Hon'ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.MP.No.88/2024 seeking appointment of Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Ld Hon'ble XVI Addl CMM, Hyderabad, after considering the matter placed before him was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of schedule property. Thereafter the said Advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice dated L7.02.2024 to the applicant directing them to vacate the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of said notice. So the said notice issued by the Advocate commissioner is perfectly legal and valid and ,, ::,:fU.. I . .^, ::,:..r^{*--...kplicants' -'} F^{so I see no sround} warranting tHe ipterferei:cb of th nal with the steps initiated by the responderft oapk7rg61a1ilffi nn I possession of the property through uo'ffi'.., there are no merits in the SA, gl ".,", .;,i.."-....r,rli . ,.1. ..::,;.,,. i .. . ,i i"-:::: : :;-

¶36

(sA.No.672024)

¶37

hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶38

Point no.ii)

¶39

In the result, 5A.67/2024 is dismissed.

¶40

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

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the Vh Oct, 2025)

¶43

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

trri<br>
* otocT2uzs :
g^;
,'.O -" t3 S '
W,.#

¶45

n#]ilfrn"sn'nano'

¶46

Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain v. Hdb Financial Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain v. Hdb Financial Services

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

Mr Ajay Kumar Jogu versus Smfc India Home Finance Ltd.

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Molgara Bhagyalakshmi

Ms Sri Nandini Restaurant and Bar versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets