Applicant challenged proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession, alleging failure to issue proper notices and follow Rule 8 procedures. Tribunal rejected the challenge as procedurally valid following by the Respondent.
Application dismissed with no order as to costs; interim interdict on possession proceedings lifted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ 1 AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1 3TH DAY OF JULY. 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.1o3/2025
Mr.Ravikanti Ashok, S/o Kistaiah, aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 12-5761 l, Islampura, Road No. 1, Medlife Hospital Lane, Near Srilatha Nursing Home, Mancherial.
... Applicant
Versus
Shriram Finance Ltd. Rep. by its AuthorizedOfficer Regd. Office at Sri Towers, Plot No. 14a, southPhase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennnai-60o032. . .. Respondent
: Si D. Raghauulu
Counsel for the APPlicant
: Si N.RagLuueer
Counsel for
db .o7.2026
on w :l .07.2026
on * .07.2026
JUL ,:
\io.$
1. This appli e Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2OO2, challenging -ihe proceedings initiated by the Respondent for
taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate
commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld'Principal Sr'Civil Judge'
Mancherial in Crl.M.P'No.2ll25 and to declare the same as illegal and
void.
Applicant availed Mortgage loan of Rs.70 lakhs from the Respondent in the year 2023 and created mortgage against the schedule property in security to the said loan. However, due to financial crisis, the business of the Applicant went into loss and so, could not pay some instalments. The Respondent illega11y declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA and without issuing demand notice and possession notice, straightway proceeded for taking physical possession of schedule property and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Th,e Applicant is ready to regularize the loan account by paying the overdue amount. Hence the SA.
The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and admittedly committed default in repayment of loan dues. So, the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the Act, 2OO2 and obtained orders from the Ld.principal Sr.Civil Judge, Mancherial in Crl.M.p.No .21 l2S for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
- Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.
2
Potnt No.lil-
3
Applicant by duly following theprocedure contemplated underthe provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and thereafter, initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2OO2 lor taking physical possession of the scheduleproperty by followingdue process of law.
Ld.Principal Sr.civil Judge, Mancherial u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.2l125 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Mancherial after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA. So, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid.
Point No.(ii):-
transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open dag of Julg,2O26)
1j JUL2S2$
sd/(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether valid grounds exist to challenge the creditor's possession proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act due to alleged procedural lapses?
What relief should be granted regarding the impugned stay or challenge to the possession proceedings?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Ravikanti Ashok
Shriram Finance Ltd.
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
