Dismissed

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Unit 17 application challenging a possession notice issued under Section 14 SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank validly served notices via publication after return of registered post appointments were binding on the lessee applicant, and there was no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application filed under Section 17 SARFAESI Act challenging the notice dated 26.11.2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui versus Shriram City Union Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 29rH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.154 ol2O2S

¶4

Between :

¶5

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui, s/o Mohd Himayat Ullah Siddiqui, aged about 55 years, occ:business, R/o H, No.B- 1 -364/ LB4, Shaikpet, Delux colony, Golkond, Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance ltd, Represented by its GpA Sri K.V. Ramana, No.3-6-478, 4th floor, Anand Estates, Liberty road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

Mr. Firasat Hussain, S/o Quadar Hussain, aged about 39 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.6-2-1, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the Parties: Counsel for Applicant M/s Afsha Khanam Counsel for Respondent Sri N. Raghuveer Orders reserved on 07.o5.2026 %q Pronounced on 29.06.2026 g J0ll m/6" Uploaded in website on 30.06.2026 l,h*t#,

¶12

(sA.No.1s4l202s)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The applicant filed securitisation Application under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (for short "SARFAESI Act) charenging the notice dated 2g.01.2025 issued by the Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property in crr'Mp'No.100/2024 passed by the Hon'bre lst Additionar chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶15

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶16

The Appricant herein is neither borrower nor guarantor but a third party, a rease horder to the proceedings issued by the Respondent no'1' The appricant has taken the schedure property on rease from respondent no.2 herein. The 2nd respondent executed a rease 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 initiated proceedings and issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also possession notice under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. But the demand notice and possession notices were not served on appricants lqffi$;r!p4f='iq*"d^{on the schedule property nor pubrished} in two ' lr' stipulated under section B(1) and B(2) of tii,^{$:.r[trnJfit"tpCrnfdF+rent) _, -'z-'i-'iiun-rrr}-""Rutes, 2002. rhe respondentbank} ti,:. ? t,'r,,*..\q-*o^+l 2 'ifum# :---:.:,--z;'

¶17

(SA. No.1s4l2025)

¶18

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.

¶19

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 facility 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 05.0t.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

¶20

proceedings Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by t'$-riii-'&.i 2024 on the file Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge cum Addl iP6 ' * Chief Metr Magistrate, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri district i.s^{29JUttt rnx} i r.l1 rn/ /r/rt ted Advocate commissioner for taking physical ,S ", and got app( $6t .roa1 e said Advocate commissioner issued notice to the al.,?BPti?Bi \gl,ErrY 3

¶21

(sA.No.1s4l202s)

¶22

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

¶23

Heard the arguments of both Counsels.

¶24

Now the point for consideration is

¶25

i) Whether the applicants have established any^groundfor challenging the notice dated 26.11.2024 in Crl.MP.No.392/2024 for vacating the schedule^property?

¶26

ii) To What RelieP

¶27

Point no.i)

¶28

During the course of arguments, the Ld counsel^{for applicants and} respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated^supra. There is no dispute regarding the fact that applicants availed^loan 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.}

¶29

The contention of the applicants is that the respondent bank^has not served demand notice and^possession notice on the applicants and initia for taking physical^possession of the^property ioner by filing necessary application before the- con^cernefl., ,llp"n'Otel ftnior Civil Judge Cum Additional^Chief 't -. 2 I^JUli "n?i M€irtopol ' ,',- -:, itan Mag - istrate ^ -'1. at,.Ku li katpal ly, Medcha I Malkajg^{iri d} istrict^who

¶30

(SA.No.15al202s)

¶31

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

¶32

B. 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.

¶33

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

¶34

ce was published in the newspapers "Mana Telangana "Ifls lCra I I ". Thus there is valid service of possession notice e applicants.. JliN^{,n?[ *}

¶35

.usy

¶36

(SA. No.154/2025)

¶37

After issuing the possession notice, the respondent bank is at liberty to approach the concerned Chief ludicial Magistrate seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Accordingly the Respondent filed Crl.MP.392/2024 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.L1.2024 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.

4 is dismissed.

of.

(SA.No.154/2025)

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

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

¶43

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

#-ri-verraaao'

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ishrat Ullah Siddiqui v. Shriram City Union 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

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry