Dismissed

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another v. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

DRT19 Jun 2026SA/153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application under SARFAESI Act s.17, the debtor challenged a Section 14 possession order obtained by the housing finance company. The Tribunal held that technical defects in demand notice service and absence of exact due amount in affidavit did not cause substantial prejudice, citing L&T Housing Finance, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; pending interim applications closed; costs borne by respective parties.

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶5

S.A. No. 153 of 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. Shivaraj Badigar S/o. Mr. Magappa Aged about 35 years Prop: M/s. Lawanya Electrical 2. Smt. Shweta Shivaraj Badigar Aged about 35 years

¶8

Both are residing at No.2/B, R S No.55/2, Mallikarjun Nagar, Khasbag, Belaguam - 590001

¶9

AND:

¶10

The Authorised Officer Jana Small Finance Limited Reg. office at Fairway Business Park #10/1, 11/2, 12/2B, Off Domlur, Koramangala Inner Ring Road, Next to EGL Business park, Challaghatta, Bangalore-560071

¶11

. . . Respondent

¶12

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :-

¶13

Counsel for Applicant :- Sri. E. Devaraja Counsel for Respondent :- M/s. S A Associates

¶14

: - O R D E R - :

¶15

This Securitization Application, SA is filed under section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act; herein after been referred to as SARFAESI Act or

¶16

¶17

SA.No.153/2025

¶18

the Act, as the case be challenging the measures initiated and continued by the respondent leading to the procurement of section 14 order from the Dy. Commissioner Belgavi vide Order No.RRC/SEC/CR 10/2024-25.

¶19

The applicant had availed housing loan of Rs.38,00,000/- in the year 2020, which was repayable in 180 monthly EMIs. It also contended that apart from the covid period, the applicant had been making regular EMIs and without following the mandate of RBI and without taking note of the fact that, the default occur only during Covid, the respondent had classified the account as NPA. It is also stated that, no demand notice is served on the applicant before the issuance of possession notice. In the grounds to the SA also, the applicant is reiterating the contention as to the alleged non service of demand notice and also non affixture of the possession notice. It is also stated that, in the redemption clause as mandated as per the statute is not included in the possession notice and on that ground the applicant submits that, the possession notice is liable to be set aside. The applicant is also having a case that, the due amount as mentioned in the possession notice is exorbitant and the said amount is not due in the account. Another contention is taken by the applicant is that, the date of issuance of demand notice is not mentioned in the impugned possession notice. The respondent obtained exparte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Belagavi vide Order No.RRC/CR 10/2024-25 under the S.14 of the Act. The respondent is trying to take physical possession of the applicants properties. Along with the SA, the applicant has produced the following documents:

¶20

¶21

SA.No.153/2025

¶22

i) The order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Belagavi vide Order No.RRC/SEC/CR34(E-234184) 2024-25)

¶23

ii) The order passed by the Assistance Commissioner Belgavi vide Order No.RRC/CR 10/2024-25

¶24

iii) The Tasildhar and Taluk Executive officer issued notice dated 09.05.2025 to applicant for intimation to take possession of the property.

¶25

The respondent had filed objections inter alia contending that, applicant is not entitled for any relief sought and the present appeal is frivolous and not maintainable in law or facts as the true facts suppressed.

¶26

The respondent had also explained as to the availment of credit facility and as to the creation of security interest including the registration of secure asset with Central Registry. It is stated that, since the applicant had failed to pay back the amount and became a defaulter, the account has been classified as NPA on 02.03.2022 and the demand notice dated 18.10.2023 was issued. It is also stated that, the said notice was sent through RPAD. The respondent also contends that, the demand notice also published as mandated under the statute. Since no repayment was forth coming the impugned possession notice is issued which is also published and affixed as mandated under the statute. Hence according to the respondent, the measures initiated and continued leading to the impugned possession notice is in accordance with the statute.

¶27

¶28

SA.No.153/2025

¶29

It is also contended that, the respondent bank registered the mortgage property before the Central Registry and the copy of the CERSAI is produced. Apart from the above, the respondent had given para wise rebuttal of all the contentions taken in the SA. The respondent had produced the following documents:

¶30

I. Copy of Sanction Letter dated 14.12.2020 at Annexure – R1

¶31

II. Copy of Loan Agreement dated 14.12.2020 at Annexure – R2 III. Copy of Guarantee Agreement at Annexure - R3

¶32

IV. Copy of Memorandum of Entry at Annexure - R4

¶33

V. Copy of Deed of Gift at Annexure - R5

¶34

VI.Copy of CERSAI Certificate at Annexure - R6

¶35

VII. Copy of account statement at Annexure - R7

¶36

VIII. Copy of demand notice U/s 13(2) at Annexure R8

¶37

IX.Copy of postal receipts at Annexure - R9

¶38

X. Copy of 13(2) notice affixture photographs at Annexure-R10 XI.Copy of 13(2) paper publications at Annexure R11 XII. Copy of Possession at Annexure - R12 XIII. Copy of postal receipts at Annexure - R13 XIV. Copy of possession notice affixture photographs at Annexure - R14 XV. Copy of 13(4) paper publication at Annexure -

¶39

R15

¶40

Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records.

¶41

¶42

SA.No.153/2025

¶43

Though the applicant contends that, there is no proper service of demand notice, the respondent had along with the objections produced the proof of dispatch of the demand notice, though no proof as to the service of demand notice on the borrowers are produced. The respondent had proven the compliance of Rule 3 as they have taken the paper publication of demand notice and also produced affixture of the same. In view of the above, the only finding of this Tribunal can enter is that there is a due compliance of Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. Even though, the applicant tries to raise the contention as to the procedure in issuance of possession notice this Tribunal is not adverting the same as the issuance of symbolic possession notice is not a precondition for S.14 measures and the if at all the proceedings are bad for not following the mandates, the same has no relevance as to the legality of measures under S.14 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant though had harped upon the contention that, in the affidavit in the support of the application filed before the concerned officer due amount as on date of filing of the application is not mentioned by the respondent. Though the statute mandates the respondent to mention due amount as on date of filing of application in the affidavit, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the measures resort ground alone, as no prejudice that is caused to the applicant in put forth in the SA as settled in the Hon’ble Apex court in L&T Housing Finance Limited Vs. Trishul Developers and Anr. held as follows:

¶44

¶45

SA.No.153/2025

¶46

Technical defects or procedure lapses in recovery

¶47

proceedings initiated by the secured creditor would not prejudice the debtors, unless the debtors shows that there is a substantial prejudice caused in the technical defect.

¶48

In the said decision (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para No.11 as reads:

¶49

11. In the facts and circumstances, when the action has been taken by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed by law and the person affected has a knowledge leaving no ambiguity or confusion in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor, in our considered view, such action taken thereof cannot be held to be bad in law merely on raising a trivial objection which has no legs to stand unless the person

¶50

is able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of the procedural lapse as prescribed under the Act or the rules framed thereunder still with a caveat that it always depends upon the facts of each case to decipher the nature of the procedural lapse being complained of and the resultant prejudiced if any, being caused and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be uniformly followed in all the transactions.

¶51

Taking into the view of the above scenario even though this Tribunal is of the view that, the actual due amount as mandated as per provision of the S.14 of the Act is not mentioned in the affidavit, the same cannot be a ground to hold the entire measures in valid as no substantial injury is proven to be caused to be applicant on eth above regard.

¶52

Taking view of the above, discussions as held and conclusion arrived therein, this Tribunal is of the view that, the applicant had not made out

¶53

¶54

SA.No.153/2025

¶55

any substantial ground to interfere with the measures initiated and continued by the respondent.

¶56

In the result, SA.No.153/2025 is dismissed. All pending IAs stand closed. The parties to bear their respective costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶57

(Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), after her transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order passed on this 19^th day of June 2026)

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another v. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another v. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms D S Enterprise And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Amal Roy And Anr.

Ved Parkash versus Cholamandalam investment and finance company limited

Indian Bank versus M/S Sai Automobiles

Bank of India versus M/s Vishnu Priya Enterprises

Badal Das and Anr. versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited and Anr.