Dismissed

Sri Shyamsunder Athipamula v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

DRT1 Jun 2026SA/230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal allowed the respondent bank's application under SARFAESI Act, dismissing the applicant's challenge to the Advocate Commissioner's notice for taking physical possession. The court held notices were validly served via publication and the appointment of the Commissioner complied with statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Security Retrieval Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications disposed of; No order as to costs.

Sri Shyamsunder Athipamula versus Hinduja Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

SA.No.23O ot 2O2S

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Shyamsunder Athipamula, s/o. Late Yadagiri, aged about 4g years, male, occ: business, Ambernagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s- Hinduja Housing Finance Company Limited, Rep by its Authorised officer, Znd floor, T19 Towers, Indra nagar, Karbala Maidan, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the^parties:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant Shri Shaik Khaja^peer

¶12

Counsel for Respondent

¶13

Sri T. Ranadhir Singh

¶14

Orders reserved on 19.05.2026

¶15

Pronounced on

¶16

01.06.2026

¶17

Uploaded in websifg.oh . *,'j , .06.2026 "''^{'' "i} -aHt'i 'r;'' tl 6,\ / 4\ l't i/ s :: :-t o JuNm ::il5'..r ; l 1. The applicarlt:rtb filed Securitisatipn:Apblication under Section 17 of the .?. ,,P .il .:: , Securitisation ldi Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security (for short "SARFAESI Act) challenging

¶18

(SA.No.230/202s)

¶19

the notice dated 15.05.2025 issued by the Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶20

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶21

The wife of the applicant availed loan from respondent bank to a tune of Rs.30.00 lakhs on t4.O3.ZO2l. The applicant stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of schedule property. Thereafter, the borrower could not repay the loan amount and requested time for repayment. But the respondent bank initiated proceedings and issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the sARFAESI Act and arso possession notice under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. But the possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers as stipulated under section g(1) and B(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The respondent bank issued demand notice and possession notice but not served on the applicant. The respondent bank initiated proceedings before Hon'ble X Addl CJM, Secunderabad by filing crl.MP.No.902/202s for appointment of Advocate commissioner on 15'05.2025. The advocate commissioner visited the schedure property and issued notice for vacating the schedule property and same is not valid. Hence the SA.

¶22

The respqndent reply statement contending that the i applicant and his fartri[ mem iled housing loan from respondent * bank to; a'tunelbr. ndUloTffi ratGhs nd executed necessary documents t,. - [,

¶23

(sA.No.230/202s)

¶24

and created mortgage in respect of schedule property. As the applicant failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 3L.03.2022 and thereafter issued demand notice dated 26.08.2022 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act but the said notice was unserved on the applicants. So the Demand notice was published in two leading newspapers on 09.09,2022. Thereafter the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 10.02.2023 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property which was published in "Nava Telangana and Financial Express,,daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent bank initiated proceedings Under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by fiting Crl.Mp, LSg5/2025 on the fite Hon,bte X Addt chief Judicial Magistrate, secunderabad and got appointed Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession. The said Advocate commissioner issued notice to the applicant which is binding on him. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Heard the arguments of both Counsels.

¶26

Now the point for consideration is

¶27

i) Whether the applicant has established any ground for challenging

¶28

gated 15.05.2025 issued by the Advocate
raa.
'..a-'
&..-tir.acat nS the schedute property?
''fb-.,
/lp
ur, it A wnuiiai"rz rrtrt tlltc 7 )j'?
6 ,. 1111 tfl2F

(SA.No.230/202s)

Point no.i)

During the course of arguments, the Ld counsel for applicant and respondent bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra. There is no dispute regarding the fact that wife of the applicant availed loan facility from the respondent bank whereas the applicant stood as guarantor and created mortgage of schedule property and thereafter the applicant and borrower committed default and the loan account was classified as NPA by the respondent bank.

¶33

The contention of the applicant is that the respondent bank has not served demand notice and possession notice on the applicant and initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the property through Advocate commissioner by filing necessary application before the concerned Hon'ble X Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad who issued notice dated 15.05.2025 to the applicant which is not valid and not binding on the applicant.

¶34

The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the demand notice and Possession notice to the Applicant and so the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on

¶35

is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicant.

¶36

bank in order to establish that it has followed the

¶37

procedure laid d in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder fi t ,ltlH^z,r;f

¶38

in issuing the sta ry notices, has enclosed the material documents

¶39

(sA.N0.230/202s)

¶40

along with the reply. As per the said documents it is crear that after classifying the loan account as NpA on 26.0g.2022, the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicant. The said notice was sent through Registered post but however it was returned unserved. So the respondent ban published the demand notice in Terugu and Engrish Newspapers and so, there is valid service of notice on the applicant. As there was no response to the said demand notice, the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated L0.02.2023 to the applicant and the said possession notice was published in the newspapers "Nava Telangana and Financial Express" Thus there is valid service of possession notice on the applicant,

¶41

After issuing the possession notice, the respondent bank is at liberty to approach the concerned Chief ludicial Magistrate seeking appointment of Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property, Accordingly the Respondent flled crl.MP.1595/2025 on the file of Hon'ble x chief Judicial Magistrate, secunderabad. The Ld chief ludicial Magistrate after considering the record, was pleased to appoint Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Admittedly, the said

¶42

issioner issued impugned vacate notice dated -14r1i.ffi, I"r plicant to vacate the schedule property within ,'.2 ,iF ,^{" tft !ava'[r96tnera!e of notice. So the said notice issued by the}

¶43

(SA.No.230/2025)

¶44

Advocate commissioner is perfecily legal, valid and binding on the applicant. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. so there are no merits in the sA and hence sA is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.

¶45

Point no.ii)

¶46

In the result, 5A.230/2025 is dismissed.

¶47

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

¶48

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open coutt on this the 7"t day of June, 2026)

¶50

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

(,f
J ot
t-d
l'.4,*.
... .. ,hil
.- t
\r.

¶52

a:tril
-'-$:,:ti#ffioo'

Sri Shyamsunder Athipamula v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shyamsunder Athipamula v. Hinduja Housing 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Venkateswara Rice Traders and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Mohammed Nizam uddin versus Protium Finance Limited

Ms Shiva Sai Foods Rep by its Prop Kolate Shantha Bai versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Pottipati Sivareddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Musham Ravi Kumar

Mr Sanjay Sambrani versus Union Bank of India