Dismissed

B Balraj Goud v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice and proceedings for taking physical possession. The court found the secured creditor followed statutory procedures regarding notices and rules, leaving no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no relief granted to the applicant to quash the possession proceedings.

B Balraj Goud versus Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 23RD DAYOF MARCH, 2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.1O8,/2O24

¶5

Balagouni Balraj Goud, S/o Sri Lingamayya Goud, Aged 59 years, Occ:business, R/o flat No. 101, 8-3-402, Ashok Badam View Apartment, Road No.4&5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, D.No.3-6-629, 4th floor, Bhoopal Reddy Complex, Street No. 8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad

¶9

Hyderabad ... Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : SnV. SethuMadhauaRao Counsel for Respondent : Si N.Raghuueer

¶10

Reserued on :21.01.2026 Pronounccd on : 23.03.2026 Uploaded on :23.O3.2O26

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is liled by the Appricant u/s. 17 of the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the possession notice dt. 17.0 r.2o24 and also the proceedings initiated by the lespondent for taking physical possession through Advocate commissioner pursuant to

¶13

CMM, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.p.No.772l24 and,also and void.

¶14

i ltn' fT't'A'fl 11rtr"0'j application, in brief, are that: i, 'Jf t. '*ie,r-w$

¶15

The Applicant availed credit facilities from Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. in the year 2Ol2 an:d the Applicant has not created any securit5r interest over the schedule property in favour of the Respondent. In view of the loss in the business, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. The original lender filed an Arbitration case before the Arbitrator and the Ld.Arbitrator without notice, passed exparte award in Arbitration Case No.428/ 13. Challenging the said award, the Applicant frled Arb.OP No.1476115 before the Honble XXIV Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad and the said court passed decree by setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. Thereafter, without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession ofthe schedule propert5r 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. Hence the SA.

¶16

.r. The Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed Business Development loan of Rs.5 crores by creating mortgage against the schedule property and one B. Aruna goud, Srinivas and Pothagani Allen Goud stood as guarantors and thereafter committed default and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 08.09.2013 as per the guidelines of RBI. So, the Respondent initiated arbitration proceedings, however, the award passed by the Arbitrator in A.R.C.No.428/13 was set aside by the Ld.XXIV Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad giving liberty to the Respondent to initiate proceedings for recovery of debt.. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice d1.25.09.2023 and possession

¶17

The said possession notice was affixed on the and also published in two daily newspapers. dent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, '^lr2oo2 for possession of the schedule property as per the )n?6 , 23uRB

¶18

orders of td.XVII ACMM, Hyderabad in Crl.M.p.No .772124 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

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

¶20

Now the points t1lat arise for consideration are

¶21

i. tuhether th.e Applicant has established ang valid ground s for challenging tte proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking phgsical possession ofthe schedule propetA u/ s 14 ofthe SARFIIESI Act, 2002 through advocate commissioner?

¶22

ii. To what relief ?

¶23

Polnt No.lil:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Applicant has not created any security interest in favour of the Respondent herein and so, the Respondent is not entitled to initiate proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 in respect of the schedule property. The further contention is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following Rule 8(l)&(2) of ent) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for of the schedule property through advocate s14 SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said ndent against the schedule property are

¶27

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that at the time of availing credit facilities, the Applicant executed Memorandum Evidencing Deposit of Title Deeds in respect of the schedule property in favour of the original lender Shriram Union finance Ltd. and later in view of the amalgamation, the name has been changed to Shriram Finance Ltd, Respondent herein and the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and guarantors and also in taking physical possession ofthe schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶29

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As^per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.25.O9.2o23 u/ s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act,2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and guarantors through Regd.Post and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply^{with the said notice, the} Respondent issued possession notice dt.l7 .Ol .2024 u/ s¹³⁽⁴⁾ of^the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports frled by the^Respondent. The said possession notice was^published in^Telugu and^{English daily} newspapers as evidenced by the copies of^{paperpublication frled by the} Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule^property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent.^{Thus, the} Respondent has duly followed the^procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the^impugned 24 rrls 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking ii$trre' e property. So, the demand notice and ent are perfectly legal and valid. =^l$r.a

¶30

As per the provisions of section 14 of sARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002, the secured creditor is at libert5r to approach the concemed 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 being secured creditor, approached Ld.XVI ACMM, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by frling crl'M.P.No.772124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r and the advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property.

¶31

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. so, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Point No.(ii):-

¶33

In the result, SA IOB /2024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶34

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

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dctated to the P.s, transcibed bg her, correcteil, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 23d daA of Marcly 2O26)

¶37

sd/-

¶38

(G. CTOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OTFICER

¶39

WHrq#

B Balraj Goud v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Balraj Goud v. Shriram Finance Limited

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.Mohini Podupu Sangham

Kavitha Enterprises versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sravanthi Powelooms Industry

State Bank of India versus Mr. Arun Kumar Mantoor

Balagouni Balraj Goud versus Shriram Finance Limited