Dismissed

Bejugam Vijay Kumar v. Shriram Finance limited

DRT5 Mar 2026SA/206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act challenging physical possession proceedings. The Tribunal found the Respondent validly issued demand and possession notices pursuant to Sections 13(2) and 13(4), complying with Rules 8(1) and 8(2), thereby barring Applicants' relief.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no interfering with Respondent's possession proceedings u/s 14 SARFAESI Act.

Bejugam Vijay Kumar versus Shriram Finance limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 5TH DAYOF MARCH, 2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.206,/2C24

¶5

Bejugam Vijay Kumar, S/o Sudharshan Bejugam, Aged 49 years, Occ:business, Rlo 5-5-232, Viveknanda colony, Kamareddy-SO3 I l l ... Applicant

¶6

Versus Shriram Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer, Branch oflice at Kamareddy. .. . Respondent Counsel for th-e Applicant : Sri A. Vijag Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Si P. Ramachandran

¶7

Reserued on : 2O.01.2026 Pronounced on : 05.O3.2O26 Uploaded on :05.03.2O26

¶8

ORDER

¶9

I ' This application is liled by the Appricant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Kamareddy in Crl.M.P.No.l8 /24 and also to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶10

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

¶11

The Applicanl availd(i,fus-pe loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the Respondent a8ainX T",Tf.lHl*. cil schedule property as security for the repayment of the above'lbd(DDue to financiar problems, the Applicant courd not

¶12

pay some instalments and requested the Respondent to regularize the account. But without considering the same, the Respondent ilegally declared the Applicant,s account as NpA. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, Kamareddy and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt.25. O2.2O23 was not published in two daily newspapers and a,lso not affixed on the schedule propert5r and thereby violated Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶13

¶14

The Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Appricant availed roan of Rs.25 takhs from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule propert5r and thereafter committed default and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 08.09.2021 and, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.09.0 g.2o22 and the same was served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.02.2023 to the Applicant and the same was published in two leading newspapers and also aflixed on the schedule property. subsequently, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Kamareddy in Crl.M.p.No .Ig/24 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. P. erused the material brought on record.

¶16

N",*,h?fifili *,": rdr consideration are ffi

¶17

i. uhether the Applicant has established ang ualid ground s for challenging the proceedings initiated by tlrc Respondent for taking physicol possession of the schedule propefrg u/ s 14 of the SARFA.ESI Ad, 2002 through aduocote commissioner?

¶18

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶19

Point No.(if :-

¶20

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

¶21

7 . The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶22

B. The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶23

Per contra, Respondent^..contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated un{gr the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in iSbuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in4ati$S$Umfcal pbssession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶24

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply frled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classiS,ing the loan account of the Applicant as NpA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.Og.OA.2O22 u/s l3(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. when the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.02.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2oo2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication Iiled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs Iiled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2oo2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.25.02.2o23 u/s t3(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶25

As per the provisions of section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberly to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession ofthe secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Kamareddyu/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2by filing Crl.M.p.No.t8l24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule 1.prpperty. Ld.CJM, Karimnagar after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedqle .-property and the said advocate commissioner 1..:', issued notice to ttre Applicanr to vacate the schedule property and the said notice wa9 ahr#fii.ffi".*"d gn the Applicant. ?r

¶26

so, considering an 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 property u/s 14 of the sARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶27

Point No.(11)t

¶28

In the result, SA206l24 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶29

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

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dctated to the P.s, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed. and" pronounced. bg me in th-e open court on this the Sth dag of Marcla 2026)

¶32

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDIIIG OFFICER

¶33

I
a
0 5 trlAfl zfm r
-}

¶34

Bejugam Vijay Kumar v. Shriram Finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bejugam Vijay Kumar v. Shriram 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

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited versus Indusind Bank Limited

Srivani Medi versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Juluri Sai Krishna

Indian Bank versus M/S. Perfect Electronics

K.SunilKumar versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. R R Apparels