Dismissed

Ganneboina Vanitha v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered a Securitisation Application filed by a lease holder challenging the validity of a possession notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner. The court examined whether statutory notice requirements were met and dismissed the application, upholding the Commissioner's notice as valid and binding.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed; no interference with the Commissioner's notice was permitted.

Ganneboina Vanitha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.154 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui, s/o Mohd Himayat Ullah Siddiqui, aged about 55 years, occ:business, R/o H. No.8- 1 -364/ L84, Shaikpet, Delux colony, Golkond,

¶7

Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versu s

¶10

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance ltd,

¶11

Represented by its GPA Sri K.V. Ramana,

¶12

No.3-6-478, 4th floor, Anand Estates, Liberty road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Mr. Firasat Hussain, S/o Quadar Hussain, aged about

¶14

39 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.6-2-1, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

M/s Afsha Khanam Counsel for Applicant _ Sri N. Raghuveer 07.05.2026 29.06.2026 30.06.2026

¶18

(SA.No.1s4l202s)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The applicant filed Securitisation Application^{under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enforcement} of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the notice dated 28.01.2025 issued by^{the Advocate commissionerfor} taking physical^possession of the^{scheduleproperty in} Crl.MP.No.100/2024^passed by the^{Hon'ble 1st Additional Chief} ludicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶21

The averments made in the applicationⁱⁿ brief^{are as follows:}

¶22

The Applicant herein is neither borrower nor^{guarantorbut a third} party, a lease holder to the proceedings issued by the^Respondent no.1. The applicant has taken the schedule^{property on lease from} respondent no.2 herein. The 2nd respondent^{executed a lease deed} dated 07.02.2023 in favour of the Applicant^{for taking SA schedule} property on lease from 07.02.2023 for a^period of 5^years' While things stood thus, the^{respondent bank initiatedproceedings and} issued demand notice under section 13(2) of^{the SARFAESI Act and} also^possession notice under^{section13(4) of SARFAESIAct. But the} demand notice and^{possessionnotices werenot served on applicants} ed on the schedule^property nor^{publishedin two} stipulated under section B(1) and 8(2)^of ljiecrtrtg^{IdUHr€ffi(End,[e."nt1 Rules, 2002.The respondent bank} V,,,'fu**.s# z

¶23

(SA.No.1s4l202s)

¶24

initiated proceedings before Hon'ble chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing Crl.MP.No.392/2024 for appointment of Advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice for vacating the schedule property and same is not valid. Hence the SA.

¶25

The respondent bank filed reply statement contending that the applicant and his family member availed three credit facilities i.e., (1) Retail Agri Cash Credit of Rs.1.00 crore, (2) farm development of Rs.2.25 crores (3) KCG Allied indirect credit facitity totalling Rs.3.00 crores and executed necessary documents and created mortgage in respect of schedule property. As the applicant failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NpA on 24.10.2023 and thereafter issued demand notice dated OS.OL.2024 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the said notice was unserved on the applicants. So the Demand notice was published in two leading newspapers on 08.02.2024. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 10.07.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was published in^-.Mana Telangana and Financial Times" daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent

¶26

proceedings Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by 2024 on the file Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge cum Addl Magistrate, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri district ed Advocate commissioner for taking physical e said Advocate commissioner issued notice to the

¶27

¶28

(sA. No.1s4l202s)

¶29

applicants which is binding on^{them. Hence the SA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶30

Heard the arguments of both^Counsels.

¶31

Now the^point for consideration^is

¶32

i) Whether the applicants^{have established any groundfor} chattenging the notice dated^{26'11.2024in Crl.MP.No.392/2024} for vacating the schedule^property?

¶33

ii) To What RelieP

¶34

Point no.i)

¶35

During the course of arguments,^{the Ld counsel for applicantsand} respondent bank reiterated their^{respective versions as statedsupra.} There is no dispute regarding the^{fact that applicants availedloan} facilities from the respondent bank and^{created mortgage of schedule} property and thereafter the applicant and borrower committed^default and the loan account was classified^{as NPA by the respondent bank.}

¶36

The contention of the applicants^is that the^{respondent bankhas} not served demand notice and^{possession noticeon the applicantsand} for taking^{physical possession} of the^property ioner by filing necessary application before thq concerned Ho-n'blq, Senior Civil^{Judge Cum Additional Chief} rr!t! anir' 2 9^{JUli lnx} *' Mtfropoiitin uag istrate.^ii,Kukatpal^{ly, Medcha I MaI kajgiri district who}

¶37

(SA.No.1sal202s)

¶38

issued notice dated 26.11.2024 to the applicants which is not valid and not binding on the applicants.

¶39

¶40

The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the demand notice and^possession notice to the Applicant and so the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 26.11.2024 is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.

¶41

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices, has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that after classifying the loan account as NPA on 24.10.2023, the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants. The said notice was sent through Registered post but however it was returned unserved. So the respondent bank published the demand notice in Telugu and English Newspapers and so, there is valid service of notice on the applicants. As there was no response to the said demand notice, the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 10.07.2024 to the applicants and the said

¶42

ice was published in the newspapers "Mana Telangana cia ". Thus there is valid service of possession notice .r on the applicants. 2 I JUl,l'rn:r^*

¶43

(SA. No.1s4l202s)

¶44

After issuing the possession notice, the respondent bank is at liberty to approach the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking^{physicalpossession} of the schedule property. Accordingly the Respondent filed Crl.MP.39212024 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri district. The Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the record, was^pleased to appoint Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Admittedly, the said Advocate Commissioner issued impugned vacate notice dated 26.1t.2024 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property within 15 days from the date of notice. So the said notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. So there are no merits in the SA and hence SA is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.

¶45

is dismissed.

¶46

frrt'd"u.t,#,9 ons,^pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶47

(sA. No.1sal202s)

¶48

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Er day of June, 2026)

¶50

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

o#I-nioEraeeo'

Ganneboina Vanitha v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganneboina Vanitha v. LIC Housing Finance 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

Similar cases

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India