Dismissed

Karthik Singh Deepawale v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT4 Feb 2026SA/195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a caveat petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by home loan borrowers challenging the secured lender's proceedings to take physical possession. The Court upheld the statutory compliance of notices and possession proceedings, holding the application meritless and barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

The caveat petition application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was dismissed as there were no merits and the proceeding was barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No. 195/2C24

¶5

l. Karthik Singh Deepawale, S/o D.Ajay Prakash Singh,

¶6

Occ:business, aged 25 years, H.No.13-1-1069, Ground & 2nd floor, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad-soo 006

¶7

Abhishek Singh, S/o Ajay Prakash Singh, Occ:business,

¶8

H.No.13-1-1069, Ground & 2"d floor, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad-sOO 006

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Authorized Officer IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd., Regd. Office at: IIFL house, Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot IYo.B-23,

¶12

Thane Industrial Alt a, Wagle Estate, Thane-4Oo 604 & branch office at: IIFL, 5&6 Foor,

¶13

My Home Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500 004

¶14

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶15

The Chief Manager, IIFL Home Finance I td.,

¶16

Formerly known as lndia Infoline Finance Ltd., Regd. Office at: IIFL house, Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot No.B-23, Thane Industrial Are,l, Wagle Estate, Thane-400 604 & brarich office at: IIFL, 5&6 FLOOR,

¶17

*
'#l o 4 [[i] ?ir?fi
,i:t
..'t tA

¶18

My l{ome Saro'rar Ftaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabr... :l') u(^,

¶19

Counsel for the Applicants : Sri J.Narender Kumar Couns el for R es p o ndents : Sn 1[.8. Sudarshan Reserued on :01.O1.2025 Pronounced on : O4.O2.2O26 Uploaded on :04.O2.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.42ll24 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶22

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶23

The Applicants availed mortgage loan of Rs.13,56,668/- for construction of house from the Respondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Due to Covid-19 and loss in the business, the Applicants could not pay some instalments. Ail of a sudden, of{icials of the Respondent No.2 along with^advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and served notice to vacate the schedule property without issuing any prior notices.^The Respondents failed to serve demand notice and^possession notice to^the Applicants. The impugned possession notice was not^published in^two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule^property. Hence the SA.

¶24

Respondents filed Reply denying^a-11 the adverse aliegations^made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed loan from^the ndents and created mortgage against the schedule property and they committed default in repaying the loan dues and so,^the nt was classified as NPA. So, the Respondents issued dt.O2.ll.2021 u./s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and

¶25

¶26

a@ ootEB2fff6*""qr i; i,.i\ t t', fu-s-,W',p, -s

¶27

the same notice was duly served on the Applicants and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, the Respondents issued possession notice dt.17.O3.2022 and the said notice was served on the Applicants. The said possession notice was published in Business Standard and Andhra Prabha daily newspapers and the sarne was also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondents initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.XVI Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad issued notice to the Applicants to vacate the schedule property. Thus the Respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding against the secured asset u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingiy, Respondents prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶28

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶29

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶30

whether the Applicants ha.ue established ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondents for taking phgsicalpossesslon of the schedule propertg u/ s 14 of the SAREABS/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶31

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶32

Point IVo.{i):-

¶33

the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated ,p )supra. 3 :^{olrrB)'rzl *ii} :, T'If ."! .- 6r"i t' ,ol .s^,8" ' ..^{l,r,)'1r,',,r,*or$S;17} IJI];'5i.r,".,{^"'{9;

¶34

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants avaiied loan facilities from the Respondents by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶35

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondents without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, straightaway initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 without following due process of law and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondents are not legal and valid.

¶36

Per contra, Respondents contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in initiating proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u /s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶37

To substantiate their contention, Respondents fi1ed material documents along with Counter. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicants as NPA, Respondents issued Demand notice dt.o2.11.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2oo2 aad the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports frled by the Respondents and the said notice was also published in two d.aily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondents. Thus there is valid service of notice on the Applicants. When the Applicants failed to comply id demand notice, Respondents issued possession notice u/s 13(a) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the i,, .r * 0 4 F6g'inmApplicants others through Regd. Post and the said notice was .j,t ii,hr3

¶38

&r-,S!-ry

¶39

personally served on the Applicant No.2 as evidenced by his signature on the office copy of the said notice filed by the Respondents. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondents and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondents. Thus the Respondents have duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r B(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.17.o3.2o22 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking possession of the schedule property. However, the present sA is filed on 28.05.2024 wherein the Appticants have been challenging the possession notice dt.77.O3.2O22 and so, the same is barred by limitation.

¶40

¶41

As per the provisions of section 14 ofsARFAESI Act, 2oo2,after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, Respondents being secured creditors, approached Ld.CMM, Itamially, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SA.RFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.42I124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicants for vacating the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicants. So the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly and valid.

¶42

g ali the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. J

¶43

.'jl ..,

¶44

rr,J

¶45

So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicants.

¶46

Point No.(ii):-

¶47

In the result, sA 195/2024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶48

t4. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶49

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed by her, corrected,, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 4th dag of Februarg, 2026)

¶51

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

,.ffi
'J 04rEB ?M6
,, rtl
i;d
W
n.q:"/, ffYDfF,48,tl).

Karthik Singh Deepawale v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik Singh Deepawale v. Iifl Home 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

Sri Javvaji Suresh versus Bank of Baroda

M S Lmr Constructions versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Miss. Kota Karika

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Private Limited

Ms Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Rep by its Prop Vema Rambabu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Yuva Sree Diagnostics