Dismissed

Edda Saidulu and Another v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited

DRT16 Jul 2026SA/151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a seizure notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held the notice was a fabricated document without signatures or seal and the underlying possession proceedings were valid after statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, stood disposed of.

Edda Saidulu and Another versus Aptus Value Housing Finance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 6TH DAY OF JULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.151/2025

¶5

l.Edda Saidulu, S/o Ramulu, Aged 36 years, Occ:business

¶6

Smt.Edda Sirisha, W/o E Saidulu, aged 30 years Occ:house wife, Both are Rlo H.No.2-7 I 1, Jagathpally village, Budhan pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. ... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized ofhcer Sri Sai GovardhanKunj Apartments, H.No.7-1-397l 101& 118, MIG-6/A, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad-S0O 038 ... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants :SiT. SidharReddg Counsel for the Respondent : Si A. Parshuram

¶10

Reserued on 08.07.2026 Pronounced on 16.07.2026 Uploaded to the website on 16.07.2026

¶11

ORDER

¶12

u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 *(SAEFAESI Apt?Oo2)challenging the Notice dt.21.O3.2025 issued by the gn."|"fladlfl t#[o.,ilui,., ".,"ra., of the schedule property and atso the wd

¶13

proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking^{physicalpossession of} the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act,2O02 pursuant to the} orders of Ld.CJM, Bhongir and to declare^{the same as null and void.}

¶14

The averments made by the Applicants^{in briefare as follows:}

¶15

The Applicants availed housing loan from the^{Respondentagainst the} mortgage of schedule property and regularly^{paying the instalments} without any default. In the meanwhile,^{the bank proceeded for sale of the} schedule property by issuing notice^{dt.21.03.2025withoutmentioningthe} date of auction and other details. The Respondent^{failed to serve demand} notice and possession notice to the Applicants.^{The Bank failed to follow} Rule 8(5)(6)&9(1) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002 as no} separate pre-sale notice was issued u/r^{8(6) of Rules, 2OO2.The impugned} sale notice was not served on the Applicants^{and the said notice was not} published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed^{on the schedule} property. The Respondent also proceeded u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct for} taking physical possession of the schedule^{propertypursuantto the orders} of Ld.CJM, Bhongir without following^{due process of law. Hencethe SA.}

¶16

The Respondent liled their Reply denying all the^{adverseallegations made} in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed^{loan from the} Respondent and thereafter committed default in^{repaying the dues and} so, the loan account of the Applicants was^{classifiedas NPA on} 08.06.2023. Accordingly, the Respondent^{proceededunderthe provisions} of SARFAES d issued demand notice dt. 16.06.2023^and possess by duly following the^procedure. Th ed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for takins phvl'tr,fifi"Ti6'o" * e secured asset pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Bhohgir and the dtf te commissioner seized the schedule ure. However, the impugned^Notice Respondent has not issued anY such

¶17

notice which the Applicants are challenging in the present SA and there are no signatures, seal ofthe Respondent and the said notice is fabricated by the Applicants. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

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

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

ii. uhether the Applicants haue established anA ualid grounds for challenging the impugned Notice dt.21.03.2025 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶21

ut. To what relief?

¶22

Point ffo.(if :-

¶23

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

¶24

There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicants avaiied loan from the Respondent and thereafter, they committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan account of the Applicants as NpA, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of-the schedule property through advocate

¶25

¶26

d.--'-w v$

¶27

specific cbntention -pll the Applicants is that the Respondent issued i,"l{"JUt-sAPE Noice dt.21.03.2o2s for conducting auction of the property w.ithout mentioning the date of auction and without

¶28

following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶29

But the Respondent contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder and also took physical^possession ofthe schedule property by duly following the process of law.

¶30

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 16.06.2023 u/s 13(2) of the Act and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent issued Possession Notice dt.27.11.2023 and published the said notice in two leading newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as evidenced by the documents hled by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)(2) of Rules, 2OO2. After issuing possession notice, the Respondent as secured creditor is entitled to proceed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2 for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, the Respondent after duly issuing demand notice and^possession notice, proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Bhongir issued notice to the Applicants and also took physical possession of the schedule property by ure. So the said proceedings are legal and valid.

¶31

lm Norice dt.21.03.2025 w,hich is in challenge in the conce the Respondent contended that they have not

¶32

"f $?ffr26ld.h^{fr$i..and a perusal of the said noticefiled by the} licants makes that there is no seal or signature of the dent an e is a printed form which is a created one. So, ecide the validity or otherwise of the said Notice

¶33

dt.21.O3.2025 since the said notice is a fabricated document and so, relief claimed by the Applicants with regard to the said notice becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the present SA for adjudication. This point is answered accordingly.

¶34

Point No.(il)t

¶35

t2. In the result, SA 151 125 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

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

¶38

sd/(c. coPr cHA"!rD) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

r*h%
', itJlt2[6 i
&,*d

¶40

ilyw

Edda Saidulu and Another v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edda Saidulu and Another v. Aptus Value Housing Finance India 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

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Sri Gudala Girish versus State Bank of India

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahalaxmi Agencies

Murugu Sadasiva Naidu versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Sri Nagulapally Chandraiah