Dismissed

Meedivemula Srinivasa Reddy v. Piramal Capital

DRT25 Aug 2026SA/225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Securitization Application filed to quash a possession notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Applicant challenged procedural irregularities in service of notices and auction proceedings. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, finding sufficient proof of compliance with statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, are closed.

Meedivemula Srinivasa Reddy versus Piramal Capital — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD DATED THis THE 25rH DAy oF AUGUSI 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAMESH\ ,-l3irf,?J1?.?;c."fl '^{L LB' (Hons.} ), M.A.

¶2

Securitization Application No. 225 oF 202s lrXfl^{,":fS ri n ivasaReddy} :/_:^{r"lKeady, Age: 48 years,} yl.' f :.lnu:s, Gender: Mate, x/o. rrrumala Venkatadri Towers, i3,Ilr. ;i'r,,;ilr'^{r' r' v' aa nla-reoo} v,

¶3

......Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited, Branch office at D.No. 7_l_61s,ot{s";iiie, Imperial Towers, 4th Floor, Units: 1,2&8, Ameerpet Main Road, Hyderabad, Telangana 500016 Rep. by its Authorised Officer

¶6

.....Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Ms. P. S. Sujatha

¶7

-:ORDER:-

¶8

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.L7 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) assailing possession notice dated 10.04.2025 under section 13(4) of the Act in respect of the SA Schedule property.

¶9

The averments of the application, in brief, are that applicant availed a loan facility of Rs. 45,00,000/- from the Respondent and initially serviced the account regularly, but due to subsequent financial difficulties committed certain defaults and approached the Bank seeking time for regularisation. The Appricant contends that relying upon an oral assurance of the Bank offiQials that the account UW"

¶10

Page^{2 of 5}

¶11

SA^{No. 22512o2s}

¶12

Would^{be regularisedupon payment of part of the overdue amount,} he^{made ."rtain payments and continued efforts to arrange funds' It} is further^{alleged that, despite the Demand Notice dated Lg't2'2024} issued^{under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESIAct claiming Rs'} 4g,LO,47g'B4t-^{as on I5'L2'2024' the same was not personally} serveduponhimand,thereafter,theRespondentproceededtotake physicalpossessionofthemortgagedpropertywithoutdulyserving thePossessionNoticedatedl0.04.2025.TheApplicantallegesthatthe^{possession Noticewas neither duly served, affixedon the secured} assetnorpublishedintwoleadingnewspapersincompliancewith RuleB(1)and(2)oftheSecuritylnterest(Enforcement)Rules,2002, (hereinafter..Rules,,forshort)andfurthercontendsthatpossession wastakenwithoutthepresenceofanAdvocateCommissioner.The Applicantalsodisputesthelevyofpenalinterestandcorrectnessof theoutstandingduesandallegesthattheRespondentproceeded towardsauctionofthesecuredassetwithoutaffordinghiman opportunitytocleartheduesandwithoutfollowingthemandatory statutoryprocedure,renderingthemeasuresillegal,arbitraryand violative^{of principles of natural justice' Accordingly'the Applicant} seeks^{setting aside of the proceedings initiated under section 13(4)} pursuant to^{the PossessionNotice dated 10.04.2025,alongwith costs} and consequential^reliefs'

¶13

3.TheRespondentCompanyfileditsreplystatementalongwith supportingdocuments'TheavermentsoftheRespondent,inbrief, are that^{the Respondentsubmits that the Applicanthad originally} availedthehousingloanfromM/s.DewanHousingFinance CorporationLtd.(DHFL),whichWaSacquiredbyM/s.PiramatCapital and Housing^{Finance Ltd. It is further contendedthat the Applicant} committed^{defaultsand the accountwas classified as NPA on} 04.12.2024^{in accordance with RBI guidelines, whereafter Demand}

//'ry6,,\

Page 3 of 5

SA No. 22512025

Notice dated 20.12.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and subsequently published in two newspapers, namely Business standard and Nava Telangana. The Respondent asserts that despite service of the Demand Notice, the Applicant failed to regularise the account or make the requisite payments, resulting in issuance and affixture of^possession Notice dated 10.04.2025 at the Schedule Property and its publication in two newspapers on L5.04.2025. The Respondent further contends that the Applicant,s pleadings regarding receipt of the Section 13(4) notice a!-e contradictory and that the allegations regarding non-service and procedural irregularities are bald and unsupported. It is submitted that interest was charged strictly in accordance with the contractual terms contained in the Sanction Letter and Loan Agreement and that the Statement of Account duly reflects the outstanding liability. Accordingly, the Respondent prays for dismissal of the S.A.

¶18

4, Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the written arguments filed by respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent Company failed to comply with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, Learned Counsel submitted that the measures initiated by the Respondent against the S.A. Schedule Property are liabte to be set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Respondent Company denied the averments made in the SA and placed reliance upon the documents filed along with the reply statement. It was submitted that the loan account was classified as a NpA in accordance with the RBI guidelines

alry$$

Page 4 of⁵

sA No.225l2025

and that^{the RespondentCompany had strictly compliedwith the} procedure^{prescribed under the Act and the Rules'2002 thereunder'} Accordingly^{prayedfor dismissalof the SA'}

¶25

The^{points for consideration are as follows : -}

¶26

i) Whether^{the Applicantmade} .^{out, any valid ground} ,to ' quashing of the'possession notice dated 10'04'2025^under section fiG)^{o7 ti:heAct in respect of the SA Schedule}

¶27

ProPertY?

¶28

ii) To what^relief?

¶29

Point No.(i):

¶30

Admittedly,^{applicant availedloan facilities against mortgage of} schedule^{Propertyand failed to make payment as per repayment} schedule.HencetheactionoftheRespondentCompanyin classification of^{account as NPA and initiating the SARFESI} proceedings cannot^{be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by} the aPPlicant.

¶31

9, The^{RespondentCompany relied on copies of documents} annexed with^{the reply statement'Pages 15 to 29 of the material} paper annexed to^{the reply statementare the Photostat copies of} postal receipts, acknowledgement^{card and publication of the same in} English and^{Telugu (vernacular language)newspaperson 20'01'2025} proving service of^{demandnotice'Similarly' Pages 30 to 49 are the} Photostat^{copiesof possession notice dated lO'04'2025 being served} via registered^{post,photographs as proof of affixture on secured} assets and^{publicationof the same in Englishand Telugu (vernacular} language)^{newspapers on 15'04'2025' In view of sufficientproof} place on record, I^{find, no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the} As a secured Act read with^{Rures 3, B(1) & B(2)} "ffWie2.

Page 5 of 5

SA No. 2ZSIZOZS

creditor the Respondent company initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶36

In view of above observation, it is concluded that the Applicant failed to establish any ground to set aside possession notice dated 10.04,2025 under section 13(4) of the Act, 2oo2 in respect of the SA Schedule Property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

L2. consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶42

(Typed to my dictotion by the steno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25'h doy of August,2026).

¶43

[dpfr'oh RA}4ESHWAN rOrNE; PRESIDING OFFICER

Meedivemula Srinivasa Reddy v. Piramal Capital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meedivemula Srinivasa Reddy v. Piramal Capital

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Umiya Timber Trading.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Haneesh Babu Vuyyuru

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Beauty Services.

Mohammed Faheemuddin versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Ramulu

Indusind Bank versus Sunand