Dismissed

Sa Khazem v. Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

DRT17 Feb 2026SA/129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant challenged the 1st Respondent's action in taking physical possession of secured property through an advocate commissioner. The Tribunal held that the 1st Respondent duly followed statutory procedures, including issuing demand and possession notices to the applicant. Consequently, the application was dismissed, allowing t

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; proceedings for taking physical possession of the scheduled property u/s 14 continued.

Sa Khazem versus Aptus value housing finance India Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE I 6TH DAYOF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.129/2025

¶5

S A Kazeem, S/o Abdul Khareem, R/o H.No.6-2, Dupalli village, Mdhanapur mandal, Wanaparthy District

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd., Wanaparthy branch, Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶9

D. Balakarishna, S/o not known to the Applicant H.No3-63, Chinnachinthakunta, Dupalli village, Madhanapur mandal, Wanaparthy District-SO9 I 03

¶10

. .. Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for 1"t Respondent Respondent No.2

¶12

Si G.Dinesh Kumar Sri A. Parshuram

¶13

Reserued on :19.01.2026 Pronounced on : 16.02.2026 Uploaded on : 17.02.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application-ishled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging initiated by the 1"t Respondent for taldn!.physical pc of the schedule property through Advocate commlsslonef.:r Du the orders of Ld.CJM, Wanaparthy in crl. M. P:l\6. g+d2?fiB ", same as illegal and void.

¶16

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶17

The Applicant availed loan from the 1st Respondent and at the time of sanction of the loan, the officials of the lst Respondent obtained signatures of the Applicant on blank printed documents and also not released the sanctioned amount as per the agreed terms. The Applicant is regularly paying the loan amounts and paid substantial amounts into the loan account. A11 of a sudden, on O4.O3.2O25, officials of the l"t Respondent along with advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and taken physical possession of the schedule propert5z without serving any prior notices. The 1st Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and so, the proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt.lO.O5.2O24 is not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶18

The lsr Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the lst Respondent and failed to pay the outstanding dues and so, the lst Respondent classified the loan account of the Applicant as NpA on 08.12.2023 as per the guidelines of RBI. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent issued demand notice dt.16.12.2}23 and sent the said notice to the Applicant. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent issued possession notice dt.lo.o5.2o24 u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and the same was affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the l"t Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate eommissioner and the advocate commissioner took.possession of the schedule property on O4.O3.2O25 by fo of law. Thus, the lst Respondent has fo11 rff;,gcribed under the provisions of SARFAESI

¶19

secured asset u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, lst Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA. 4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the 1"1 Respondent. Notice not taken against Respondent No.2 and hence claim against Respondent No.2 is dismissed. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

i. whether the Applicant has establislrcd ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the l"t Respondentfor taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertA u/ s 14 of the SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶22

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶23

Point JVo.(if :-

¶24

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

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from the lst Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues and the advocate commissioner took physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Wanaparthy.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the lst Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without ing due process of law and so, the said proceedings initiated st the schedule property are null and void.

¶27

1 6^{rra 1ffi} *oS,f .;kl:sfiW

¶28

Per contra, lst Respondent contended that they have 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 also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶29

To substantiate their contentiorr, 1"t Respondent filed material documents along with Reply. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, lst Respondent issued Demand notice dt.16.12.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the l"t Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, lst Respondent issued possession notice dt.10.05.2024 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post. In fact, the Applicant also filed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by him. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the 1st Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the lst Respondent. Thus the l"t Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of SecuritSr Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.10.0s.2024 uls 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the 1st Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶30

¶31

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistratqfor talqing physical possession of the secured asset. In .:. ': . ...- .u L. the in3t4pt 6asq; 4fter i$iu:t\ demand notice and possession notice to the eppitc*nt and{oth..",^'i.'i r" Respondent being secured creditor, ,, l, heq I$.ft#V?0[anatriafthy u/s t4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by fiIiffi rl. nr.^p. N" ^o tiiory$ri.rrointment of advocate commissioner for ''..t'"",.'t1. ...gf,{t;' 4

¶32

taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.cJM, Wanaparthy, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and after issuing notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule propert5r, the said advocate commissioner took physical possession of the schedule property on 04.03.2025.

¶33

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 1st Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2o02. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the lst Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶34

Polnt No.(ii):-

¶35

In the result, sA 129 /25 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶36

t4. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected., signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 16th dag of February, 2026)

¶39

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

1 E FFB zfffi

¶41

Sa Khazem v. Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sa Khazem v. Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sankatala Nagendra

Ms Young Stars and Little Stars Impressions and Another versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Chiluka Rakesh

Canara Bank versus M/S. Thirumala Traders

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Keerthana Power Looms Industry