Allowed

Mr Abhay Kumar Patro v. LIC Housing Finance

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Securitization Application challenging a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Since the Respondent was present but did not file a counter-reply and could not prove compliance with statutory service requirements, the notice was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was allowed and the possession notice dated 12.10.2024 was set aside.

Mr Abhay Kumar Patro versus LIC Housing Finance — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

" PRESENT: SH. RAMESlryll[OTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.70 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Abhay Kumar patro . S/o. Ramprasad patro 11.19:s-4e1,^{Deepthi Sri Nasar} lr.:91n.grqu,^{Sheritinsampaily} Hyoerabad - 500049.

¶6

........ Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

LIC Housing Finance Ltd t^{2O.t,2nd Ftoor, xrisnJ 6apnire} South Block, Sy. No.gg Madhapur, Hitech City Main Road Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OOO81. Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶9

.......Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Mr. l. Srinivas Respondent Ex parteparte

¶11

Ex parteparte

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to declare the possession notice dated 12.0t.2024 issued under sec. 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 and 9 against the petition schedute property and without following due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, as illegal, void and not maintainable.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed housing loan facility from the respondent. Due to financial problems the applicant could not able to repay the monthly instalments. Respondent proceeded to issue Sec.13(4) notice against the schedule property. Demand notice, possession notice were not served, the possession no:m11not affixed

i// 1s9'-

zot 2

sA7olzo24

and^{published as per Rules'The respondent failed to follow the} procedures contemplated^{underSecs 13(2), 13(4) of the Act and Rules} btrl, etOl^{& 8(7) of the Securitv Interest(Enforcement) Rules'2002-'} Hence this^SA.

¶19

Though the^{respondent enteredappearancethrougha counsel'} theydidnotchoosetofilecounterreply'Accordingly'defendantrightof filing counter^{reply was forfeited vide docket order datedt4'17'2024'}

¶20

Heard the Learned^{counsel for applicant.Respondent's right for} advancing arguments^{was forfeited and set ex-parte on 24'09'2025'} Perused the^{material brought on record'}

¶21

It is the contention^{of applicantthat the respondentfailed to serve} demand notice and^{possession notice under Sec.13(2)and 13(4) of the} Act. As stated supra, respondent^{remained ex-parte to the SA} proceedings and hence no material is available as^{proof of complianceof} procedure of law. Under such circumstances, the contentions of applicant remain unchallenged and accordingly SA deserves to be allowed'

¶22

In the result, the SA is allowed by setting aside the^possession notice dated t2.0t.2024 in respect of SA schedule^property.

¶23

Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of, No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the website.

¶24

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the OVn day of October, 2025).

¶25

/K.*" rEsHwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Abhay Kumar Patro v. LIC Housing Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abhay Kumar Patro v. LIC Housing Finance

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

Shivender Reddy Gutha versus Karvy Finance Services Ltd.

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

L Vamshi Krishna versus Bank of India

Sarthchandrika versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Smt K Krishnamma versus Indian Bank

Arram Srinivas versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited