Dismissed

Kondeti Devadayamani v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging the secured creditor's proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court found the creditor duly followed the notice procedure under Section 13, holding the applicant not entitled to relief and the proceedings valid. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are to continue. No order as to costs.

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 5TH DAY OF JULY.2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.202/2025

¶5

Mrs.Kondeti Devadayamani, W/o Kondeti Bushanam, H.No.5- 1 2-92l8, Plot No.8, Gajulapeta, Nirmal.

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Author2ed Officer, #2O1, 2nd floor, Krishe Saphire Building, Near Image Hospital, Hitech City Main road, Madhapur, Hyderabad branch, Hyderabad-SOO 081.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for ttLe Applicant Si C. Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondent Si Chamarthg Mahesh Reserued on :07.O7.2026 Pronounced on : 15.07.2026 Uploaded on : 15.07.2O26

¶11

.:ORDER:-

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Acr, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical ssion of the schedule property through advocate t to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nirmal in declare the same as null and void.

¶13

¶14

pplication, in brief, are that:

¶15

loan from the Respondent and due to could not make some payments. The

¶16

Respondent classilied the loan account^{as NPA and issued possession} notice dt.04. lI.2023 without issuing demand^{notice. Thereafter, the} Respondent initiated proceedings u/s^{14 of} the^{SARFAESI Act, 2OO2} for taking physical possession^of the^{schedulepropertypursuantto the} orders of Ld.CJM, Nirmal without^{following due process of law. Hence} the SA.

¶17

The Respondent filed their Reply^{denying all the adverse allegations} made in the SA. The contentions^{of the Respondent in brief are that,} the Applicant availed housing loan^{from the Respondentto a tune of} Rs.45,50,00O/- by creating mortgage against the^{schedule property.} Thereafter, the Applicant committed default in^{repayingthe loan dues} and so, the loan account was classified^{as NPA on 1O.O4.2O23as per} the guidelines of RBI. Accordingly, the^{Respondentissueddemand} notice dt.14.08.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act and sent the same} to the Applicant and thereafter, issued^{possession notice dt.O4. ll.2023} by duly following the^{procedure. Thereafter,the Respondentproceeded} u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2^{for taking physicalpossession of the} schedule property and obtained orders^{from Ld.CJM, Nirmal and the} advocate commissioner issued vacate^{noticeto the Applicant and thus} there are no violations. Accordingly, the^{Respondent prayedto dismiss} the SA.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and^{Ld. Counsel forthe} Respondent and perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶19

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are,-

¶20

t. established ang ualid grounds for challenging by tlrc Respondent fo, taking^phgsical u/ s 14 of the SARFAES/ Act, 2002

¶21

rl? W***n#'

¶22

ii. To what relief ?

¶23

Point No.(if :-

¶24

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the scheduie propert5z.

¶26

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice, directly issued possession notice and subsequently initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 without foliowing the procedure and so, the said proceedings are null and void.

¶27

Per contra, Respondent contended that Applicant availed loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property. After availing the loan, the Applicant admittedly committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classihed as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respon{,qgtis1_ql.demand notice and possession notice to the ..-^.:;-i'-'.. Applicant gvt',+sry: bVaCSty. -,.':'''....1-t hoi'tilitrqg\he l.ir.lti,.rqiga. procedure contemplated under the provisions;'oS- SARFAESI nct,|2\02 and Rules made thereunder and t nh erea rf sl t ei ,'i iiitiatea hitiated iloceeqinssr\s proceedine l4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for schedule property by following due tuti,g -^{-rt3.jr,i'"i.^n} ir a'l o5"iU!"tffi "i process {Bt " $5,,'*#/. w:;g

¶28

To substantiate their contention,^{the Respondent filedmaterialdocuments.-} along with the Reply filed^{by them.As per the said documents,it is clear} that the Respondent issued^{demandnotice dt. 14.08.2025 u/s 13(2)of} the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 and sent^{the said noticeto the Applicantand} others through Regd. Post as evidenced^{by the postal track reports filed by} the Respondent. When the^{Applicantfailed to complywith the said} demand notice, Respondent issued^{possession notice dt.04'11.2023uls} 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said^{possessionnotice was sent to the} Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the^postal track^reportsliled by the Respondent. The said notice was^{published in Teluguand English} daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of^{paper publication filed by} the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs frled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice in respect the schedule property.

¶29

As per the provisions of Section 14of SARFAESI Act,20O2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) 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 assets. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Nirmal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by liling Cr1.M.P.No.61 125 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Nirmal after consid material on recoTd, appointed advocate commissioner for ion of the schedule property and the said advocate

¶30

ffi^{;:ffi :::**: J" h[T; ;'*:: ::'il: ;h.::::::}

¶31

lllen$rft,4f^{rype,tfir]lappucant filed the present SA. So, the said} and valid.

¶32

¶33

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule properV u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶34

Point No.lii):-

¶35

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A, transcibed by her, anrected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 1 Sth of Juls, 2026).

¶39

sd/_ (G. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

rRuE GoPJ
a";l;;u
,ft:';#w

¶41

Kondeti Devadayamani v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondeti Devadayamani 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shakthi Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr. Gajjala Saptagiri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Moulding Works

Canara Bank versus M/S. Goshen Exim

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited