Dismissed

Narsing Rao Mekala v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT16 Jan 2026SA/227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging a Rule 8(6) pre-sale notice. The court held that previous legal proceedings were already dismissed on merits and found compliance with Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, concluding no grounds existed to set aside the sale notice. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed to set aside the Rule 8(6) notice is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Narsing Rao Mekala versus Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16th^DAY OF^]ANUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com,L.LB.(Hons.), 14.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.227^{OF 2025}

¶5

Narsing Rao Mekala s/o Mekala Laxmaiah Aged-55^years, Occ:^Business, R/o. H. No:10.123l1,Behind^{G.P.s school,} Ghatkesar Village & Mandal,^Malkarjgiri, Medchal District-501301.

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram Finance Limited Branch office at 7-l-26215,^{Flrst Floor,} A.S.Rao Nagar Road, Srinivasa^NagarColony, Kushiguda, Hyderabad-500062.

¶9

...... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the A\Plicant : Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Mr. M. Indrasen

¶11

-r Q-R-O-E-B:-

¶12

The^present Securitization^{applicationis filed by the applicant to} declare the^{proceedingsinitiatedby the respondent by issuingpre} sale notice dated 28.04.2025^{underRule 8(6) as illegal, null and vide} and consequently set aside^{the same.}

¶13

The case of the^{applicantin brief, is that he availed loan of} RS.25,OO,O0O/- from^{respondentin 2018 and had beenregularly} paying without any default. However,^due to^unforeseen circumstances the applicant^{could not keep the accountregular. The} applicant filed SA^{beforeLearned DRT-I challengingpossession notice} dated 06.08.2022 wherein interim^{stay was granted subjectto} depositing RS.6,OO,OO0/-.^{Respondentrefusedto acceptthe amount} and revised the loan tenure^{from 60 EMIS to 76 EMISwhich have} been cleared by the^{applicant. Respondentdid not issueNOC despite}

//fr're/^"\b U^'"ou'

PaBe 2 of4

sANo.227l2O2s

substantial^payment of Rs.45,00,000/- towards 76^EMIs. without classifying the account as NPA, without serving demand^noticeunder Section 13(2) and^{possessionnotice} under Section^{13(4)and without} publishing and affixing the possession notice, the respondent directly issued Rule 8(6) notice. The action of the respondent is illegal and contrary to the^procedure of the law. Hence the SA.

¶18

The respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions , inter alia, that the applicant earlier filed SA 217 /2022 before learned DRT-I Hyderabad which was dismissed on merits on 28,70.2024. The tenure of the loan has been increased from 60 to 76 EMIS in view of the moratorium granted on account of covid-19 pandemic, as per RBI^guidelines. Since the applicant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement in spite of several reminders, the respondent classified the account as NPA on 11.05.2021 and initiated Securitization proceedings by issuing Section 13(2) demand notice dated 19.04.2022 which was delivered to the applicant, but he dld not choose to make any payment. Thereupon, respondent issued possession notice under Section 13(4) on 06.08.2022, sent the same by registered post and received by applicant. The possession notice was also affixed on the secured asset and published in Telugu and English news papers in strict compliance by the^provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under, hence SA is liable be dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Perused the written arguments and the material brought on record.

¶20

According to respondent's counsel, applicant earlier filed SA 217 /2022 challenging the possession notice and the same was dismissed on merits. The statement of account filed alono with list of fu"^.ri (V

¶21

Page 3 of4

¶22

SA No.227 l2O2S

¶23

documents disproves that^{the applicant paid all EMIS.The EMIS have} been increased on^{account of moratoriumfrcm 3/20 to 8/20 without} changing the EMI amount.^{Learnedcounsel furthersubmits that the} respondent finance^{companydid not violate any of the provisionsof} the Act and the^Rules, the^{applicant cannotescapehis liability as} agreed at the time of^{loan sanction. Accordingly, he soughtfor} dismissal of the SA^{white relying on the documents annexedto the} reply statement.

¶24

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

¶25

i) Whether the^{applicant made out anY valid.ground.to} quash the measures initiated by the^{respondent against} the SA schedule^{properties as prayed for?}

¶26

ii) To what relief?

¶27

Point No.( i):

¶28

Admittedly, the applicant^{availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/-As per} respondent, EMIS^{were adjusted on accountof moratorium and this} fact is not disputed by^{the applicant. Hence applicant'scontention} about clearance of all^{EN4IS cannot be accepted' It is not in dispute} that the SA schedule Property^{is the secured asset of the respondent'} a^perusal of the order^{dated 28.10.2024 passedby learnedDRT'I} Hyderabad, in SA^{2171?022wherebySA Was dismissed on merits} hence, the demand^{notice and possessionnotice cannotbe subject} matter of the^{present SA. However, a perusal of the documents} annexed to the reply^{statement would confirm that Section 13(2)} demand notice dated^{19.04'2022 was received by the applicant vide} postal acknowledgement card as at^{page 30, the possession notice} was also received as^{per postal acknowledgement card as at page 38,} pages 42 to 44 would confirm that^{the possessionnoticedated} 06.08.2022 was affixed on^{s^eruredasset and publishedon} /,4v,^,* l/'rou'

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

SANo.227l2O25

¶31

Ll.08.2022 in English and Telugu newspapers. The impugned sale notice dated 28.04.2025 is only a pre-sale notice informing the applicant to pay Rs.33,4t,64U- failing which the secured asset would be auctioned after 30 days. At this stage, opportunity has been given to the applicant to redeem the property and without opting to exercising the right, applicant challenged the same on irrelevant grounds on non-compliance of Rules 8(5), 8(6) and B(7) of Rules, 2002.

¶32

In view of the above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent including Rule 8(6) notice dated 28.04.2025 in respect of the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Point No.(ii):

¶34

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

¶35

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed-to my dictation by the ps, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the ldh doy oftonudry,2026).

¶37

K'd

¶38

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Narsing Rao Mekala v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsing Rao Mekala 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

A Anupama versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sathishwar Reddy

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri Vinay Kotra, S/O Kotra Ram Rao

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Thirupathi Reddy.

Smt C Venkata Subbamma versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S, v K Marketing and Services