Dismissed

Ms Samyuktha Architect and Interior Designers v. Hero Fin Crop Limited

DRT25 Aug 2026SA/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitisation Application, the applicant sought to quash SARFAESI measures including physical possession and auction of 2025. The tribunal found the auction infructuous due to lack of bidders and rejected other contentions regarding notice non-compliance. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed; no disposal of any interim protection arising.

Ms Samyuktha Architect and Interior Designers… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶2

PRt St N'l : SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, [].Com, L.LB. (Hons.), tvl.A. PRESIDING OI'[:ICER

¶3

Securitization Application No, 1"55 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. Sanryuktha Architects and In[erioi' Dcsrgners, Rep. by its Prop. Mrs. Samyuktha Priyanka, D/o. S. Nageshwar Rao, Aged: 34 years, Occ: Business, Regd. Off: Flat No. 502, )ubilee Enclave, Mahathi East End Apartment, Hydera bad- 500084

¶5

Also at: Villa No-45, Springwoods Mallampet, Outer Ring Road, Bowrampet, KV Rarrg,.r Reddy, Hyderabad- 500043 .Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hero f in Crop Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Office at'. 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057 .....Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : lvlr. P. Pavan Raghav Counsel for Respondent : Mr. N. 13. Sudarshan

¶9

-:ORDEB:-

¶10

I-hu pres()nt Securitization Applir-ltiort i:; filed by the Applii:ant uls.L7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside the action of taking physical^possession of the SA Schedule Property^pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner's notice dated 24.06.202.5, issued in^pursuance of the orders^{passed in} ffi6*

Page 2 of 6

r^li .. , :,.

SA ttlo. L5512025

Cri;M.P.No.18 of 2025 on^{the file of the Hon'bleAssistant Sessions} JirdEe, Medchal, and the .op5r:r;uential^{Sale Notice dated 2lt 02 2025,} fixing the auction on 11.04.2025.

¶15

?..^{The avermentsof the Application,in brief, are that Respondent} Company i sanctioned a Loan Against Property in 2022, secured by mor:tgage of the SA Schedule^{Property, and contendsthat the loan} was being regularly serviced^{until financial difficultiesarose} qOnsequently the account was classified as NPA and^respondent in,itiated SARFESI measures against the^{schedule propr:rty. Itis} further alleged that the Respondent^{suppressedthe pendencyof S.A.} N.o.155 of 2025 while obtaining^{orders in Crl.M.P.No.1Eot )AZlj from} the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions^{Judge,Medchal, for takingphysical} I pigssession of the secured asset, which is stated to be the Applicant'S dwelling house, and that the^{property description thereinwasalso} incorrectly mentioned. The Applicant alleges^{non-compliance with the} rlandatory requirements relating to issuance and service^{of the} Qemand^{Notice, PossessionNotice and Sale Notice, including affixture} aind i.. publication under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2;AO2 (hereinafter^"Rules" far short), It is also^{contendcclthat the} prroposed sale of the entire property is excessive and arbitrary, as the n{arket value of the secured asset is stated to exceed^{Rs. 3.50 crores} against the alleged outstanding liability of about Rs.^{1.90 crores.} Accordingly, applicant^prays for^quashing of the measures^{initiated by} respondent against the schedule^property. lrir:

¶16

9.. The Respondent Company filed its reply and additional^reply ri, s[atements along irt, ii, brief, are that the with supporting documents. The averments Applicant availed a loan faciliiy^thereof, of Rs. i,i tl172,OO,O0O/- secured by mortgage of the SA Schedule^{Property and,} ""'ryriPA on

¶17

Pagc 3 ot e

¶18

sA No. 1ss/2015

¶19

il 02.04.2024 in accordance with RBI^guidelines. It is^{contendedthfit} the Demand Notice dated L6.04.2024 under Section¹³⁽²⁾ of^tnf,p SARFAESI Act was duly served and^{published, followed by the} Possession Notice dated 23.08.2024, which was served,^published and affixed in compliance with Rule B of^{the Rules, 2002.The} Respondent further submits that^{proceedings under Section 14 were} thereafter initiated in Crl.M.P.No.18 of^{2025,pursuantto whichan} Advocate Commissioner was appointed^{for takingphysicalpossession} of the secured asset. It is asserted^{that the SaleNoticedated} 25.02.2025 was duly^{published and the e-auction was scheduled for} LL.04.2025. Denying the Applicant's^{allegations regardingnon-} service of notices, incorrect description^{of the property,non'} compliance with the Rules and disproportionate^{valuation, the} Respondent maintains that all^{statutory requirementsweredu:h7} complied with and that the^{residentialnature of the secured asset} does not bar enforcement^{underthe SARFAESI Act, The Respondeiit} further submits that the^{Applicant failed to complywith tha} condition,rl order^{passedin I.A. No'1046 of 2025 and, therefore,the} interim protection stood^{vacated. Relyingupon M/s.LakshmiShankar} Mills (P) Ltd. v.^{The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager,Indian Bank,} AIR 2008 Madras 781,^{and M/s. V'K.S. Agro FoodsHi Teih Rice} Industry v. The Tahsitdar^{& Ors., the Rcspondentcontends tliat mdre} pendency of an SA does not operate^{as an automatic btay lof} SARFAESI measures. It is^{lastlysubmittedthat the e-auction} scheduled on 11.04.2025^{failed for want of bidders and, therefore,} the relief sought by the^{Applicant has becomeinfructuous. Reliance'is} also^placed on Celir^{LLP v' Bafna Motors (Mumbai)Pvt. Ltd', Civil} Appeat ltios.5!j42-5543 of^{2023, regardingthe right of redempticin} shall be exercised till^{the date of publication of notice undeiRuie} 9(1). Accordingly, the^{Respondent prays for dismissal} ffi'*:^{of the SA'}

¶20

Page 4 of 6

¶21

SA No. 1s5/2025

¶22

Learned counsel for thr: rpplicant reported that orders may be p,,rs:;ed based on records. Hear.d learned counsel for the respondent. Pcrused the material brought on record.

¶23

5, Lcarned Counsel for ti-,. Respondent Company t,t^rtit d the avorments of the Applicant and submitted that the e-auction scheduled on LL.04.2025 could not be conducted for want of bidders and, therefore, the SA has become infructuous to that extent. Lr:arned Counsel further relied upon the documents filed along with ttre: reply statement and subr.itted that the Respondcnt ha; duly c'rmplied with the provisrons cf the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, Learned Counsel prlyeC for dismissal of the SA.

¶24

6 The points for considerar.ron are as follows : -

¶25

i) Whether Applicant made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property as prayed for?

¶26

ii) To what relief?

¶27

7 During the course of r:roceedings it was repcrtr:r 1 th -rt the auction scheduled on 11.04.2025 pursuant to sale notrce dated 25.02.2025 was not successful due to want of bidders. Under such circumstances, the contention of non-compliance of Rule 8(5), 8(6) B(/) & 9(1) of the Rules pertaining to the impugned auction need no consideration and SA has become infructuous to that ."G.Wg*

¶28

Page 5 of 6

¶29

i SA No. x55/20I5

¶30

The other contentions of the Applicant are non-compliance of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act read with Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. The Respondent Bank relied on copies of documents annexed with the reply statement. Pages; 1 37 to 156 of the material paper annexed to the reply statement are the Photostat copies of postal receipts, track reports and publication of the same in English and Teluqu (vernacular language) newspapers on 11.06.2024 proving service^, rf clc.irrand not ice. Sirnilariv, I er;es 1 57 to 162 are^I l e Photostat copies of possession notic(J being served via registered post, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 28.08.2024. ln view of suFFicient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section l3(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & B(2) of the Rules, 2(t)2. As a secured creditor rhe respondent bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶31

ln vrt u. or' abovt: ooservatton, r: i ; a()ncluded that the Rpplir- rirt failed to establish any ground to interdict the measures initiated Respondent Company under the Act read with Rules, 2002 againUt the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable:to be dismissed.

¶32

Point No.(iiI

¶33