Dismissed

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

DRT6 May 2026SA/231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special application under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the debtor recovery tribunal proceedings for taking physical possession of mortgaged property. The tribunal held the application infructuous as the applicant violated an interim stay order before possession was taken.

What did the court decide?

The special application is dismissed as there are no merits. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar versus Piramal Capital and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 6TH DAYOF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.231/2025

¶5

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar, S/o Laxmaiah, aged 49 years, Occ:business, R/o flat No.3O3, 3.d floor, Sindhu Residency, Prahanth Nagar, GP Siddipet, Medak District-S02 103

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Rep. by its Authorized Officer (Formerly known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.), Situated at Unit No.601, 6rh floor, Amit Building, Agastya Corporate park, Kamani Junction, Opp.Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-4o0 070.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent

¶11

Raghauulu Deualla Legal Nents LLp Smt. P.S. Sujatha 06.04.2026 06.05.2026 18.05.2026

¶12

Reserued on Pronounced on ^^{Uploaded on}

¶13

ORDER

¶14

6 4. &,.. , &"5&"5 -t --'--'

¶15

, &"5&"5 -t --'--' n is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, l, 1 0 ilAY ffi2, Jhalenging the proceedings initiated by rhe Respondent for 14 taking.physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate mlssloner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Siddipet in {opjni;:C.l.^{M. p. No. 268 / 2025 pursuantto} the possession notice dt.lg.OZ.2022 - and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant availed housing loan of^{Rs.3,13,900/-in the year 2OO7} from the Respondent against the^{mortgage of scheduleproperty and the} Applicant was regularly^{payingthe instalments.But due to Covid-19,} the Applicant could not^{pay some instalmentsand thereafter,requested} the Respondent to regularize^{the loan accountby receivingthe overdue} amount. The Respondent^{without considering the same,illegally} declared the loan account^{of the Appiicant as NPA.TheRespondent} failed to serve demand^{notice and possessionnotice to the Applicant} and the initiation of^{proceedings under the SARFAESIAct, 20O2 is} illegal u/s 31(j) of^{the SARFAESIAct, 2002 as the overdue amountis} less then 20%. Challenging^{the same, the Applicant filed SA 197 122} before this Hon'ble^{Tribunaland the sameis dismissed. Thereafter, the} Respondent straightaway^{initiated proceedings u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI} Act, 20O2 for taking^{physicalpossessionof the schedule property} through advocate^{commissioner pursuant to the ordersof Ld'CJM'} Siddipet and so, the^{saidproceedingsare not legal and valid'The} impugned possession^{notice was not publishedin two daily newspapers} and also not affixed^{on the schedule propertyas contemplated u/r} 8(1)&(2) of Security^{Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2O02' Hencethe SA'}

¶18

3.TheRespondentfiledtheirReplydenyingalltheadverseallegations madeintheSAandcontendedthattheApplicantavailedHousingloan from M/s Dewan^{Housing Finance Corporation Ltd'(DHFL)'The} Respondent herein acquired^{Dewan Housing Finance CorporationLtd'} ers of Honble^{NCLT,MumbaiBench.The Applicant earlier filed} hallenging the^{possessionnoticedt.19'O7} '2022^{issued by}

¶19

tr3lr Res lnt a.rd this^{Hon'ble Tribunal dismissedthe said SA vide} order dt. .O1,2025 and the^{said order has not beenchallengedbefore}

¶20

I I &UAffii Tribunal and so,^{the said order attained finality' Hence} the .notice and possession notice cannot^{be challenged in the} Thereafter, the^{Respondent proceededu/s14 of the}

¶21

I Act, 2OO2 and^{the advocate commissioner appointed by the}

¶22

CJM, Siddipet^{in Crl.M.P'No .268125, issued notice to the Applicant} 2

¶23

to vacate the schedule property. Challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA along with stay application and this Honble Tribunal granted interim stay. However, the Applicant failed to comply with the conditional stay order, so, the Respondent proceeded further and took physical possession of the schedule propertlr. So, the present SA becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶24

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

¶25

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶26

ruhether the Applicant has established ang ualid. ground.s for challenging tlrc proceedings initiated. bg the Respond.ent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertg u/ s 14 of the SARFAES/ Act, 20O2 through aduocate commissioner?

¶27

ii. To uhat relief?

¶28

Point I\Io.(if: -

¶29

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

¶30

facrs orthe case are that rhe Appricant ava,ed roan from f,rffiSr$t P . &b ' -'g,. the respondeht 4nd thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan J^{14,.HlY 1I2F .:} rrr-

¶31

W**#"o'],..,,ro., of the Appricant is that the Respondent without notice and possession notice, straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property 3

¶32

,}'+

¶33

through advocate commissioner^{u/ s14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2002} without following the^{procedure and so, the said proceedingsinitiated by} the Respondent against^{the schedule propertyare null and void' The} Applicant paid substantial^{amountsand the overdue amount is less than} 2Oo/o.

¶34

Per contra, Respondent^{contendedthat after availing Housing loan,the} Applicant committed^{defaultin repaying the loan duesas per the terms of} the loan agreement^{and so, the loan account was classihed as NPAand} the Respondent issued^{demand notice and possession notice to the} Applicant by duly^{followingthe procedure contemplatedunderthe} provisions of SARFAESI^{Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also in} taking physical^{possession of the schedule property u/s14 of the} SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2. It is furthercontendedthat the Applicantdid not} pay any amounts as alleged^{by him after issuanceof possessionnotice} u/s 13(4) of the^{Act,2OO2and,to provethe same, the Respondent filed} copy of Statement^{of Account pertainingto the loan account of the} Applicant.

¶35

Ld.counsel for^{the Respondent submittedthat the Applicant earlier filed} SA, lg7 122^{challengingthe possessionnotice issued by the Respondent'} Along with Reply,^{the Respondent filed copy of the order dt'2o 'Ol '2025} passed by this Tribunal^{in SA 197} l22^{A perusalof the said ordermakes} it clear that the^{said SA is filed by the Applicant challenging the possession} ;;^{-notrii,---At,} 19.07^{.2022 issued by the Respondentagainst the schedule} /?le$:W;;.rllrlt..r"oorate^{enquiry,the said SA was dismissedbv this} k Tr&ilnal fr"fftr\tt "t^{the demand notice and possessionnotice issued by} j ,t $ntlffiuqmo't valid. So, when^{the earlier SA filed by the Applicant} t# fi.r"""rr.s^{initiatedby the Respondent includingthe} which is in challenge^{in the present SA is dismissed on} /ptica.rt is not entitled to re-agitate the issue of non-receipt

¶36

t{i

¶37

of demand notice and possession notice in the present SA as per the p inciple s of Re s -judicat a.

¶38

1 1. After issuing demand notice and possession notice as per the contemplated procedure, the Respondent is entitled to approach the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, the Respondent approached Ld.CJM, Siddipet for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, the Ld.CJM was pleased to appoint advocate commissioner who issued notice to the Applicant directing him to vacate the schedule property and challenging the said measures, the Applicant filed the present SA along with interim application for stay. This Tribunal granted interim stay, however the Applicant failed to comply with the same and so, the Respondent proceeded further and took physical possession of the schedule property in accordance with law. In view of the same, the present SA becomes infructuous.

¶39

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the sA. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and the Applicant.

¶40

¶41

Js.^{1,&h#,S.00&t,} sn 23tl2o2sis dismissed as there are no merits. d-^ ^; \es". ..'{-t

¶42

$l.Consequent\ri^{the Interlocutory} Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the partiesconcerned}

¶44

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed by-her, arrected., signed and pronounced by me in the open
court on dag of May, 2026)
,/6
lL.
i:! sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
; 1B utY?rr?n ;
ir%.t
^€^.S':i
euut.{qKt ^,

¶45

¶46

-s

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tangallapally Gnaneshwar v. Piramal Capital and 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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Chehak Industries

Canara Bank versus Sri. Bathike Lalappa

Sri Rajkumar Margam and another versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Manikanta Powrlooms Industry

State Bank of India versus Ameya Industries

Indian Bank versus M/S. Avirbhava Infratech India Private Limited