Dismissed

Mrs Muzahar Shaik v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

DRT24 Apr 2026SA/128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed application to set aside possession measures under SARFAESI Act claiming procedural defects. Tribunal found respondent complied with demand and possession notices, held action legal, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed. Interlocutory Applications pending closed.

Mrs Muzahar Shaik versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL,²⁰²⁶

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.Com, L.LB. (Hons'),M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 128^{OF 2025}

¶5

Mrs. Muzahar Shaik, \ W/o. Mr. Bademia Babu Shaik, Aged about 46^years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-5Qle/7, Parimala Nagar^Extension, Kapra, ECIL Post, Hyderabad- 500062 .......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

TATA Capital Housing Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Situated at Plot No.3, 4, 5 & 6,^{Road No.3,} Auto Plaza Opp. Times of India, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 ......Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri. D' Raghavulu Counsel for Respondent Company:^{Mr. LankaJagannadham}

¶9

-:ORDER:-

¶10

The present Securitization Application is^filed by^{the Applicants} u/s.t7 of the Securitisation and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002("Act" hereinafterfor short)} to set aside all the measures initiated by the^{RespondentCompany} under section 13(4) of the Act,^{includingthe advocate commissioner} vacate notice dated 13.03.2025 in^pursuance of^warrantin Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2025 on the file of^{the-Hon'bleChief ludicialMagistrate} at Medchar- Markajgiri District. ow*u

¶11

Page 2 of 4

¶12

SA No. L2812025

¶13

The case of applicant in brief is that the Respondent sanctioned housing loans of Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.60 lakhs to the Applicant in the year 2019, both secured by mortgage of the Schedule Property. The Applicant and her husband were engaged in business; however, owing to the pandemic, they defaulted in repayment of certain instalments, resulting in the accounts being classified as NPA. The Applicant avers that the classification as NPA is illegal and not in accordance with the RBI guidelines. Thereupon, the Applicant was served with notice in Crl.M.P.No.S of 2025 on 13.03.2025 for physical possession of the property. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent-Bank failed to issue a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act as also a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, read with Rules B(1) and B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). In the interest of the principles of natural justice, the Applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned measures taken by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act qua the Schedule Property.

¶14

Respondent Company filed reply statement. The submissions of the Respondent Company, in brief, are: The Applicant and her husband approached the Respondent-Company for housing loans in the year 2019, whereupon the said loans were sanctioned with creation of security interest over the Schedule 'A' property by way of deposit of title deeds dated 29.08.20t9 and 25.09.2019. The Appticant defautted in repayment of the loans, consequent whereto the account was classified as a NPA on 03.02.2024, followed by issuance of demand lji:':';r:'jrj:':ji'.';tTotieeirdiisjtfie:i'5affie.1date,'under'rsectioff"1.t3!(.2).Of{heIAetr::{..[g:r,ftpptieant. neither liquidated the outstanding dues post-issuance of the demand notice nor preferred to raise objections under Section 13(3A) of the Act. Upon failure to clear the dues within the statutory period of 60 days, the Respondent-Company issued possession notice dated d'W*t{---

¶15

Page 3 of 4

¶16

SA No. 12812025

¶17

L0.05.2024 under Section 13(4) of the Act, which^{was affixed} on^the secured asset and published in Buslness Standard^{(English daily)} and Mana Telangana (Telugu daily) on 15.05.2024. Having^duly complied with the^provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the^Respondent- Company prays for dismissal of the Securitisation Application^and grant of liberty to proceed with the physical^possession of the Schedule Property.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as^Respondent Company reported that order^may be^{passed based on record.Perused} the material brought on record.

¶19

5, The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶20

--,..r.'-rr^{{,r tv.v..*}

¶21

i) Whether the applicant made out any^{valid groundto quash} action of the Respondent Company including^taking physical possession pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 13.03.2025 in Crl.MP No.5/2025^{in respect of} the SA Schedule Property, as^prayed for?

¶22

ii) To what relieft

¶23

Point No.(i):

¶24

Admittedly, the applicant availed^{Home Loan Facility against} mortgage of schedule^property as security^{and failed to make payment} as per repayment schedule,^Hence the^{action of the respondentbank} in initiating the SARFESI^{proceedingscannotbe termed as illegalor} irregular as contended by the applicant.

¶25

The Respondent Company filed material^{documents alongwith} reply statement as^proof of compliance of^{due procedure of law. Pages} 1 to 14 of the material^paper annexed^{to tfP{adoption} ,memo^dated P'ry'u*x

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

SA No. 128/2025

¶28

27.11.2025 are the Photostat copies of postal receipts, track reports and paper publication proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 15 to 28 are the Photostat copies of postal receipts of possession notice dated 10.05.2024, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 15.05.2024. fhe documents placed on record by the respondent bank remain undisputed. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of Sections 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, B(1) & B(2) of the Rutes, 2002. As a secured creditor the respondent is entitled under Sec.14 of the SARFESI Act to take action for physical possession of the secured asset, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary. Admittedly the applicant also failed to comply with the conditional orders of the Tribunal.

¶29

B. In view of above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to establish any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the Respondent Company under the Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable o be dismissed.

¶30

Point No.(ii):

¶31

In the result, the Securitisatlon Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶33

(Typed to my dictotion by the Ps, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th doy of April, 2026).

¶34

kfi'r''rrt ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs Muzahar Shaik v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Muzahar Shaik v. Tata Capital Housing 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

Indian Bank versus Mr. Shaik Ameer Bhasha

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Aaradhana Kanagala

M N Anjaiah versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/s. Dynamic Electronics

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Karthik Enterprises

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Inumula Jagannadham