Dismissed

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another v. Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT2 Apr 2026SA/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging the secured creditor's legal enforcement of security interest, including notice issuance, publication, and physical possession, finding the creditor followed due procedure under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed by the applicants is dismissed. Interlocutory applications pending are disposed of. No order as to costs.

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd. — Property and Title | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-^I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O2ND DAY OF APRIL,2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

S,A.NO.3/2024

¶5

Mr. Anwar Basha Shaik, S/o. Shaik Dastagiri, Gender: Male, aged 49^years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-35487, Plot No.35, Balakrishna Nagar, Kukatpally Village, GHMC^Kukatpally Circle, Balanagar Mandal,^{R.R. Dist.}

¶6

Mrs. Sirisenagandla Prema^Latha, W/o. Mr. Anwar Basha Shaik, Gender: Female, aged 47 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.4^-35447, Plot No.35, Balakrishna^Nagar, Kukatpally Village, GHMC^Kukatpally Circle, Balanagar Mandal,^{R.R. Dist.} Applicants.

¶7

Versus

¶8

GIC Housing Finance^Ltd- Rep. by its Authorized^Oflicer, Situated at 4th Floor,^3-6-438/4, Naspur House, HimaYathnagar, Hyderabad - 5O0 029. Respondent. Counsel for tlrc Sri D. Ragtntrulu. sinshCounsel for the ffiaiu*"draKumar Reserued on I 02 apnZffi 1.2026 Pronounced on .2026 '.04.2026 Uploaded to Website^on ' . ': .i | !.., .:.!-,1,ti../, -' t"i ..''',:4r : '^r'- lir

¶9

SA-No.3/2024

¶10

-:ORDERi

¶11

The Applicants filed the present Securitization Application u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the action of the Respondent to take physical possession of the application schedule property in pursuance of the Advocate Commissioner's Notice dt.22.12.2o23, issued in Crl.M.P.No.S12l2023 on the file of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri District and the Possession Notice dt.24.02.2023.

¶12

¶13

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that the Applicants availed a loan of Rs.45,O0,000/- from the Respondent by creating security interest over the application schedule property in the yeat 2077. Thereafter, the Applicants paid more than Rs.20,0O,OOO/- towards the loan account. However, during Covid-19 pandemic, the Applicants could not pay the loan instalments. The Applicants requested the Respondent to regularize the loan account by receiving the overdue insta-lments. But, the Respondent declared the loan account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines and issued Demand Notice, which has not been served on the Applicants. The Respondent has also failed to serve the Possession Notice dt.24.O7.2023 on the Applicants. The Respondent has also failed to alfix the Possession Notice on the schedule property and publish the Possession Notice in the newspapers. The Respondent without following the due procedure approached the Ld. CMM, Malkajgiri District by frling Crl.M.P.No.S12l2023 and obtained Advocate Commissioner Warrant for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶14

The Respondent filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations . The contentions of the Respondent, in brief, are availed loan of Rs.45,OO,O00/- from the of application schedule property arrd t of the amounts due. The loan

¶15

SA.No.3/2024

¶16

account ofthe Applicants was declared as NPA in the^year 2020 itself and the Respondent obtained Advocate Commissioner Warrant in the^year 2O2l for taking physical possession of the schedule^propert5z. However, at the request of the Applicants, the Respondent has regularized the loan account. Thereafter, again the Applicants committed default in repayment of the outstanding dues. The Respondent has once again declared the loart account as NPA on 29.01.2023 and issued Demand^{Notice dt.O6.02.2O23} u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. The said notice was sent to^the Applicants on 13.02.2023 and was also^published in two daily^newspapers dt.23.O2.2023. As the Applicants failed to repay the outstanding^{dues, the} Respondent took symbolic^possession of the application^{scheduleproperty} by issuing Possession Notice dt.24.07.2023^{u/s. 13(a) of the SARFAESI} Act. The said notice is sent to the Applicants,^{affixedon the schedule} property and thereafter published in two newspapers. As the Applicants failed to repay the dues, the Respondent^{obtained AdvocateCommissioner} Warrant in Crl.M.P.No.5l2/2O23 for^{taking physicalpossessionof the} schedule property. When the Advocate Commissioner^{issued notice to the} Applicants to vacate the^premises, the^{Applicants frled the present SA with} baseless and vague allegations.^{Hence, the SA may be dismissed.}

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

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

¶19

i) Whether the Applicants have^{made any valid groundsfor setting} aside the proceedings initiated by^{the Respondentunderthe} SARFAESI Act and the Rules^{made thereunderagainst the}

ii)

SA.No-3/2024

Polnt ltlo.ll)*

Ther is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from the Respondent by creating security interest over the application schedule property in favour of the Respondent. The Applicants have also admitted that after payment of some loan instalments, they could not pay the instalments. However, it is the contention of the Applicants that the Respondent has illegally classified the loan account as NPA. The Respondent has liled statement of account in its material documents, from which it is very clear that the Applicants were highly irregular in repayment of the loan instalments. Hence, it cannot be said that the Respondent has illegally classified the loan account as NpA. Insofar as the contentions of the Applicants that, Demand Notice and Possession Notice were not served on them and that the Possession Notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not published in the newspapers is concerned, the Respondent in its material documents filed a copy of the Demand Notice, issued u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, atong with postal receipts and copies of publication of Demand Notice in English & Telugu newspapers, from which it is clear that t.le Respondent has sent the Demand Notice dt.06.O2.2O23 to the Applicants and has also published the said notice in English & Telugu newspapers dt.23.O2.2O23. The Respondent has also filed a copy of the Possession Notice dt.24.O7.2023, issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, along with postal receipts, a copy of photograph depicting affixture of Possession Notice on the schedule property and copies of publication of Possession Notice in English & Telugu newspapers dt.25.O7.2023, which clearly establish that the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rulgs, 2OO2, while issuing the Possession Notice dt.24.O7.2A23 u/r.X-3f4|"of the SARFAESI Act. Since the Applicants have failed-io liquidate thevls[ifuutstanding despite issuance of Demand Notice ._.^{, ,.} :.:.., :,].. \1 Possessirii.i' Notice,::"4h{ Respondent has proceeded u/s. 14 of the (g^o2 npsz,,n \t'l .i

¶24

SA.No.3/2024

¶25

SARFAESIActvide crl.M.p.No.sr2l2023 on the file of Ld. cMM, Malkajgiri District, for taking physicar possession of the application schedure property.

¶26

So, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the Respondent has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rures made thereunder wh e enforcing security interest over the application schedule property, being the secured asset, to reafize its legitimate dues from the Applicants-borrowers. Hence, I hold that the present Securitization Application Iiled by the Applicants is devoid of merits and same is liabre to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicants and in favour of the Respondent.

¶27

Polnt No.lill:-

¶28

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shal stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(?id9!ed t: the-I+iuate secretary, tanscribed by ller, conec,ted., signed. and. prottounced by me in the open court on this the 02rd ddV of 4)ril, 2026).

¶31

sd/(G. GoPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFTICER

¶32

i,W

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another v. Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another v. Gic 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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Challa Raghupathi Rao

State Bank of India versus Mr. Malthumkar Sunil Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr.S. Narasing Rao

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Mende Srinivas Innovations

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ramavath Ramaja Dairy Farm

State Bank of India versus M/S. Pathulothu Sridevi Dairy Farm