This is a Securitization Application filed by the debtor challenging the validity of a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The DRT held that the respondent complied with procedural requirements and dismissed the application.
The Securitization Application is dismissed, stay vacated, and no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No. 24 OF 2026
Upender Maradhapakhu @Alias UpenderMaradapakhu @Alias Brahma Chary, S/o. Brahma Chary Maradha Pakhu, Gender: Male, Aged about 40years, Occ: Business l H.No.L-6-645, Indira Nagar, Near Ramalayam, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet, Saroorrragar, Hyderabad Telangana, Pincode : 500060 Applicant
Versus
Shriram Finance Ltd, Rep. by its Authorized officer, M. Raghavendra, Regd Office: D.No:3-6-629,4th Floor, Bhupal Reddy Complex, Street l,lo.B, H imayathnagar, imayathnagar, Hydera bad-500029
H imayathnagar, imayathnagar, Hydera bad-500029 .....Respondent Counsel for the Applican: : Smt. K. Swetha Counsel for Respondent : Mr. M. Indrasen
-:ORDER:-
''r
Page2of5
' '
SA No' 2412026
Serviced, due tobusinesslosses, supply-chaindisruptions and personal exigencies, therewas a temporary default in paymentof [MIs.He furtheravers that his mother was suffering from cancer uld, despiteprolonged treatment and hospitalization,subsequently passed away, resultingin substantial financial and emotional !'rardship.The Applicant alleges that, despitehis requestto clear the overdue instalmentsand regularizethe account, the Respondent proceeded with SARFAESImeasures and wrongly classified the account asNPA in violation of RBI guidelines. He further contends th,at the Respondentfailed to follow the mandatory procedureunder the SARFAESIAct and the SecurityInterest(Enforcement)Rules, ,. 2002,(hereinafter "RUleS" for short) includingfailureto considerhis objections,properly serve and affix the PossessionNotice in terms of Rule B(1) andB(2), and publish the samein two leading newspapers, including onevernacular newspaper.The Applicant aSserts his willingneSs toregularize the account by clearingthe overdue instalments andseeks appropriate relief from the Tribunal'
3.r , The RespondentCompany filed its reply statement along with igpportingdocuments. The averments of the Respondent,in brief' ane that aDemand Notice dated 19.09.2025 under Section 13(2) of th:e SARFAESIAct was issued which remained unclaimed and was thereafterpublished in newspapers, followedby PossessionNotices dated , 16.t2J:o25and 20.t2.2025, which were duly servedand affixed on thesecuredproperty.The Respondentcontendsthat the Applicant approachedthe Tribunal only thereafterand that the , i i:, grounds urged for non-paymentare unsupported by evidence. on Business merits, the Respondent statesthat a Expansion/DevelopmentLoan of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned $ecuredby guarantorsand deposit of title deeds under registered the [aemsrsndumof Depositof ritle Deeds. It " 'jff#k}at
i sA No. 24120[:5
Applicant committed persistent default, pursuant to which tl" account was classified as NpA on 07.oL.2oz3 after remaining overdgre for more than 90 days. The Respondent asserts due compriance wi;th Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 3, g,and,9, of the Rules, 2002, incruding service, affixture and pubrication of the requisite notices. Accordingly, the Respondent prays for dismissal lof the S.A.
,i
6' Learned counser for the Respondent company arso in its written arguments reiterated the contents of its reply and denied the averments made in the SA and praced reriance upon the documents filed along with the reply statement. It was submitted that tne toan account was crassified as a NpA in accordance,ilT:T:t,.':,r: I and that the Respondenr como;":::"i:: 'tn the RBI guidblinbs Accordinglyprayedfordismissa|oftheSA.ules,2oo2therr proced u re p rescribed u n de,,,, J li: : ff :r:t[:'Jr,':ffj ::,: #;
_---
Page 4 of5
SA No.2412026
. i) Whetherthe Appticant made out any valid groundto quashingofthepo""'ii'nnoticedated16'12'2025under ProPertY?
ii) To whatrelief?
Pgint No.(i'l:
B'Admittedly,applicantavailedSecuredbusinessloanagainst mortgageofschedulePropertyandfailedtomakepaymentaSper repaymentschedule.HencetheactionoftheRespondentCompanyin classificationofaccountaSNPAandinitiatingtheSARFESI proceedingsCannotbetermedasillegalorirregularascontendedby the aPPlicant.
9-The Applicant has contended that the loan account was wrongfultyclassifiedasNPAandthattheRespondentfailedtoadhere totheapplicableRBlguidelines.However,theApplicanthasneither specifiedtheparticularRBlguidelinesallegedlyviolatedbythe Respondentnor placed on record any material or documentary evidenceinsupportofthesaidcontention.Intheabsenceofany l."rlil. specificpleading or supporting evidence to establish such ^^:'^^romains unsubstantiated and cannot bez thesaid contention remains t
10ro controvert l::,,.:::":?t: ;;[ilT"^.',":::'']'"ffi' compliancewith the provttt"n:-:'^"-' ..r.",has relied upon and annexed "'[s I::":::,:":,I:' :?:::':;[:::"cumen'[s Replystatement.pages 28 to 43 of the material paper annexed to thereplystatementarethePhotostatcopiesofpostalreceipts, provine act<nowledgementcard and publication of the same in Englishand relusu(vernacurarlansuase)newspapers "" ,'i*llf
:
pageSofS
i
SA No. 24l202g' .:
service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 44 to 63 are the Photostat copies of possession notice dated t6.L2.2025 being served via registered post, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets lj and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular: language) newspapers on L8.t2.2025. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act read with Rules 3, B(1) & B(2) of the Rules,2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Company initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.
Point No.(ii):
,.,,
t4. No order as to costs.
(Typed to my dictotion by the steno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me iathe open coui on thtii the 2/n doy of August, 2026). t
,,'fi,\rw.V'r ((ffi555WAR KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the possession notice dated 16.12.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act?
Whether the respondent failed to comply with the statutory procedure regarding classification of the account as NPA and issuance of notices?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Upender Maradhapakhu
Shriram Finance Ltd
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
