Dismissed

Gollurri Gopal v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT4 May 2026SA/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI enactment dispute before the DRT, applicants challenged the respondent bank's enforcement proceedings under Section 14 for possession, alleging lack of statutory notices. The Tribunal found the bank validly served demand and possession notices via registered post, newspapers, and affixation. Upholding the bank's procedural compliance with Act and Rules, the application was dismiss

What did the court decide?

The Stay Application was dismissed as there are no merits; pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Gollurri Gopal versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THISTHE 4TH DAY OF MNV, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.15/2025

¶5

Golluri Gopal, S/o Mallesh, Aged 37 years, Occ:Govt. service R/o H.No.4-5-88, Errakunta Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶6

Smt. Bindu Bhargavi, W/o G. Gopal, aged 34 years, R/ o H.No.4-5-88, Errakunta Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

IIFL Home Loan, D.No.5-9-22 I B/50 1, Sth floor, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Aadarsh nagar, Secretariat Road, Rep. by Ms.V.Neha Reddy

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants : Si G. Hari Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Sn -I[..B. Sudarshan

¶12

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

¶13

.' 13.03.2026 : 04.05.2026 : 06.05.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application is hled by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for possession of the schedule property through Advocate ursuant to the orders of Ld.ll ACJM, Medchalo^q*fltr5iT'" .P.No.97 124 to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶16

made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶17

The Applicant No.l is a Government employee who availed loan of Rs.14,85,4431- from the Respondent in the year 2021 against the mortgage of schedule property and regularly paying the instalments but due to medical problems, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and requested the Respondent for time. While things stood thus, the Respondent issued demand notice and the said notice was not served on the Applicant. Thereafter, without issuing possession notice, the Respondent obtained orders in Crl.M.P.No.97 124 on the file of Ld.ll ACJM, Medchal-Malkajgiri for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.ll ACJM, Medchal-Malkajgiri and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed loan of Rs.14,85,4431- from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property. In view of the default committed by the Applicants, the Respondent issued several reminders and thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O4.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants Regd. post and the same was returned as unclaimed and the also published in two daily newspapers.. Thereafter, 6 the porlqE^0+ssuecl issued^possess lⁱ^onnot lce^{icedt.O4.O7.2024and sent the} tice tohh$ Applicants through Regd. Post and the same was q$i" tut lleaAing newspapers and the said notice was affixed , schedr{f, frroperty. Subsequently, the Respondent proceeded L9ft.EPSd*FAESI^{Act, 2oo2 for takingphysicalpossession of} z -,.:.:,.,/

¶19

the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.ll ACJM,^Medchal- Malkajgiri in Crl.M.P.No.97/24 and the advocate commissioner^issued notice dt.O3.01.2025 to the Applicants demanding to handover the possession of the schedule property. Thus the Respondent has duly followed the procedure and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

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

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶22

i. uthetlrcr the Applicants haue established anA ualid^grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SAREAES/ Act, 2O02 through aduocate commissioner?

¶23

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶24

Point IVo.(if :-

¶25

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

¶26

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter, committed ying the loan dues.

¶27

''rf^-ffi

¶28

t 8' n Jsp:^t^'^fi" ;"{i tion of the Applicants is that the Respondent without " i^{-0 4--i,ll.r-?n",,C} servlng oeman^{- --} notice and possession notice, straightaw&y, initiated taking physical possession of the schedule property t'ru#'* 3

¶29

through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 without following the procedure and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶30

Per contra, Respondent contended that after availing the loan, the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the loan agreement and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on O4.O3.2O24 as per the guidelines of RBL The Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶31

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 Applicants as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.22.O4.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. As the Applicants failed to comply with the said notice and also not raised any objections in response to the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.O4.O7.2024 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through !^{as evidenced} by the^postal track reports {iled by the said possession notice was published in Telugu and

¶32

dai spapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication

¶33

J- Iiled- by the-R ndent and the said notice was also affixed on the

¶34

r 0 [.rHJJ,?US-p] as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the s, the Respondent has duly followed Rule S(1)&(2) of

¶35

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice dt.o4.o7.2024.

¶36

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 Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.ll ACJM, Medchal Malkajgiri u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.97 124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.ll ACJM, Medchal Malkajgiri, 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 Applicants to vacate the schedule property and admittedly, the Applicants received the said notice. So, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property are perfectly legal and valid.

¶37

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are 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 of the Respondent and against the

¶38

ffiAt B.R*
;;;m,,,ru
fl., fr.rr,ry"J??Fse * 5 is dismissed as there are no merits.
;
'R- r,,.,.-'.!:'
\i.', ,.;ir'

¶39

-t

¶40

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

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed" and. pronounced. by me in the open court on this the 4th dag of Mag,, 2026)

¶43

sd/-

¶44

(G. coPr CHANDI

¶45

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

{ir
,&Lir-

¶47

Gollurri Gopal v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gollurri Gopal v. Iifl Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bejugam Veerabadhram versus Indian Overseas Bank

Madala Venkata Srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India

Mr Dharavath Ramachandru versus Canfin Homes Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S Sindhu Textiles

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Smt. Chunduri Jayaprada