Dismissed

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah v. Reliance Home Finance Limited

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed safety application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging DIP lending initiated proceedings for possession of schedule property via advocate commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that mandatory services of demand and possession notices were duly issued and respondent complied with relevant rules. Consequently, no merit was found.

What did the court decide?

The safety application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed for lack of merits as the proceedings for possession were conducted in accordance with the law.

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.24/2025

¶5

Mr.Kanuparthi Ramanaiah, S/o Kanuparthi Papaiah, Aged 45 years, occ:advocate R/o Flat No.304, 3rd floor, M.No.1-7-9l3O4, Surabhi Sapphire Apartment, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Reliance Home Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer Oflice address No.6-3-248lB/ 1 3'd floor, Dhruv Arcade, Road No. 1, Opp. Kotak Bank Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for tLe Applicont : Si R. N.Hemanand Counsel for Respondent : Si P. Ramachandran

¶11

Reserued on : 11.O5.2026 Pronounced on : 29.06.2026 Uploaded on :30.O6.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the prbceedings initiated by the Respondent for ion of the schedule property through Advocate t to the orders of Ld. IX Add1.CJM, Hyderabad in *c.t.trr. d to declare the same as illegal and void. the application, in brief, are that: J^{II?.S'JSS.?{?E.^,f;e} a.] housing loan from the Respondent against the of schedule property and the mother of the w;ffit

¶14

Applicant stood as guarantor. The Applicant^{hasbeen regularly paying} the instalments. Due to Covid-19, the Applicant^{couldnot make some} payments and the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA. In the meanwhile, on 16.01.2025,^{the advocate} commissioner along with some of the officials of^{the Respondentvisited} the schedule property and affixed the vacate notice^{on the schedule} property and demanded the Applicant to hand over the^physical possession within fifteen days. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the^{said possession} notice is neither published in two daily newspapers^{nor afl-rxed on the} schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

¶16

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse^allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant is aware^of the^fact that Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. has been^{amalgamated with} Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. by the orders of^NCLT, Mumbai and therefore the Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd.is necessary and proper party in the^present SA.^{The Applicant} availed loan from the Respondent against the creation^{of mortgagein} respect of the schedule property and the mother of the Applicant^stood as guarantor. After availing the loan, the Applicant committed^default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent declared^{the loan} account of the Applicant as NPA on 12.O7.2021 as^{per the guidelines} of RBI. So, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.23.08.202¹ u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was^receivedby the Applicant and the said notice was also^published in two^daily newspapers. When there is no response from the Applicant,^the dent issued possession notice dt.29.¹ O.2O2l and the said^notice /'dt in two daily newspapers and the same was also affixed 't the ule property. Thereafter, the Respondent^proceeded u/s i4 AESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the 2 s^JrllPtrht' through advocate commissioner and the advocate visited the schedule property and affixed a vacate notice property. Thus the Respondent has duly followed the 2

¶17

procedure and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the

¶19

Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

D. Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

i. whetLer the Applicant has establislred any ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phy sical possession of the schedule propertg u/ s 1 4 of tle SARFAES/ Act, 2O02 through aduocate commissioner?

¶22

ii. To uhat relief?

¶23

Point IrIo.(i):-

¶24

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

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶26

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

¶27

ntended that the Applicant availed housing loan the Respondent st the mortgage of schedule property and after $r,Jtl8"?lltr,. icant admittedly committed default in repaying dues terms of the loan agreement and so, the loan NPA and the Respondent issued demand notice

¶28

l=qu47

¶29

and possession notice to the Applicant by duly following the^procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also in taking physical possession of the schedule^property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2002.

¶30

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA on 12.O7.2021, Respondent issued demand notice dt.23.O8.2O21 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postai track reports frled by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication Iiled by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.29.1O.2021 u/s 13( ) of the Act, 2OO2 atd the said notice was served on the Applicant as evidenced by postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication fiied by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs hled by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(l)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 irt issuing the possession notice dl.2g.lO.2O2l against the schedule property.

¶31

As per the provisions of Secflon 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, a-fter issuance u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, ttle secured roach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief ing physical possession of the secured asset. In tn'tTtf"j,$f,'ffirt.' demand notice and possession notice to the Applitaht, the Respq t being secured creditor, approached Ld. IX /s^{14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing} appointment of advocate commissioner for taking ph of the schedule property. Ld. IX Addi.CJM, Hyderabad, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner

¶32

¶33

for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the scheduie property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant. So, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property are perfectly legal and valid.

¶34

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. 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.

¶35

Point No.(il)t

¶36