The Applicant challenged possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, alleging non-publication of notices and violation of enforcement rules. The Tribunal found that proper notices, advertisements, and affixations were made and upheld the proceedings as legal.
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 3RDDAY OF AUGUST' 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADIGOPICHAND, PRESIDINGOFFICER
SA.No.150/2025
Suman RaoNimmani, S/o Kishan Rao,aged 40 Years' Occ:business, R/oH.No.2-43, Punnelu village,Inavole(M), Warangal District-506310
... Applicant
Versus
M/s Shriramfinance Ltd. Rep. by itsAuthorized officer Branch officeat Nakkagutta, Hanamkonda,HanamkondaDist' ... ResPondent
: S-iT. SidharReddY Counsel forthe APPlicant : Si N.RagLruueer Counsel forResPondent
: 14.07.2026 Reserued on : 03.08.2026 Pronouncedon : 03.O8.2026 Uploaded on
ORDER
of the SARFAESIAct, 1. the ResPondentfor throughAdvocate Hanamkondain same as and void.
l it :'*:: hd atbilments in the application,in brief, are that: ed housingloan from the Respondentand the paying the instalments.But the Respondent
charged heavy interest on interest by violating the guidelines of RBI. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightway proceeded for taking physical possession of schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda and the advocate commissioner aiong with some recovery agents visited the schedule property and served a notice demanding the Applicant to hand over the physical possession of the schedule property which is illegal and arbitrary and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt. 1S.04.2024 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule propertlr as contemplated u/r 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA.
a
The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that after availing loan from the Respondent, Applicant committed default in repayment of loan dues. So, the Respondent classified the loan account of the Applicant as NpA in accordance with the guidelines of RBI and issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the Act, 2OO2 and, obtained orders from the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the eqn!1ant to vaGr!€ the schedule property and thus there are no violatioris,-Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
- Heard Ld.'rCo)oudsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the $l S{nond'ent.!-eJuJedthe material brought on record.
that arise for consideration are
Point llo.(il:-
thereunder and thereafter, initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property by following due process of law.
.t Ir.Lh. instiiit cage, ' after issuing demand notice and possession notice to I !. r. .. , . ''
. thq ,}npli93nt, }}i{ Respondent being secured creditor, approached
-- Ld C{M, ,""T;BilO" u/s 14 of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 by filing ." $rlfu.P.No.ozsP{::l$r appointment of advocate commissioner for taking 'r
''; 't1:ii'f 4
' ', ': " i'""'t ' ''-.; , -'il ,1, 1;-;,- .,.,,i.'11 .;'
physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession ofthe 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. So, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid.
Potnt No.(11)t
rtq;Q,to $p P. -5, lranscibed bg her, coffected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open on.figF fhe .y+. dag o[ August, 2026) Iln.t ,..-\ -, ,\r! .:\ sd/(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER )..:9^a;ap ,sst ncghtrar"l Lc- DI?".r- ;ii'f ':l- '"'r
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARF
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Suman Rao Nimmani
M/s Shriram Finance Ltd.
G. Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
