Dismissed

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani v. Grihum Housing Finance Limited

DRT20 May 2026SA/248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicants' Section 17 application challenging the respondent's recovery proceedings. The tribunal held that the respondent duly followed statutory procedures and rules for issuing notices and appointing an advocate commissioner, finding no merit in the applicants' challenge.

What did the court decide?

Section 248 of 2025 was dismissed as it had no merit.

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOF MprV,2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.248,/2025

¶5

1.Smt. Gilakathula Nagamani, W/o J.Srinivas, aged 33 years Occ:house wife,

¶6

J.Srinivas, S/o J.Venkanna, Aged 35 years, Occ: Auto driver R/o H.No. l- 1 -517 / E / 1 /B, Indira Nagar, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Griham Housing finance Ltd. (Earlier Poonawalla Housing finance Ltd.& Magma Housing Finance Ltd.) Rep. by its Authorized Representative

¶10

Regd. Office at 602,66 floor, Zero Orre IT park, Sy.No.79/ 1, Ghorpadi, Mundhwa Road, NA Pune-411036.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Counsel for tle Applicants Counsel for Respondent

¶13

: Sri T.Sidhar Reddg : S,iV. Santosh

¶14

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on

:07.05.2O26

: 20.O5.2026

: 20.05.2026

ORDER

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, proceedings initiated by the Respondent for of the schedule property through Advocate the orders of Ld.Principal Sr.Civil judge,

¶20

25 and to declare the same as illegal and

¶21

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

¶22

The Applicants availed Housing loan facility of Rs. 10,90,000/_ from the Respondent and regularly paying the instalments. The Respondent charged heavy interest on interest. In the meanwhile, some persons calming to be the recovery agents of Respondent along with advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and demanded the Applicants to hand over the physical possession of schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.principal Sr.Civil judge, Suryapet in Crl.M.P.No. 19 125 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. The impugned possession notice dt. 19.02.2025 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property as contemplated ul r 8(1)&(2) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶23

.).

¶24

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed loan of Rs. 10,90,000 l- from the Respondent against the creation of mortgage in respect of the schedule property. After availing the loan facilities, Applicants committed default in repayment of loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan account of the Applicants as NpA on 06.12.2024 as per the guideline of RBI. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O9.I2.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 19.02.2025 and. the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and the same was

¶25

the schddule property. Thereafter, the Respondent 4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical hedule properties through advocate commissioner. t has duly followed the procedure and there are no ,^{Respondentprayed} to dismiss the SA.

¶26

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the

¶27

Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶28

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶29

i. uthether the Applicants haue establisled any ualid ground.s for challenging tle proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking

¶30

phgsical possession ofthe sclrcdule propertA u/ s 14 ofthe SARFIIESI Act, 2OO2 through aduocate commissioner?

¶31

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶32

Point lVo.(if :-

¶33

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

¶34

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed various loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule propert5r 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.

¶35

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 20O2, straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶36

Per dent contended that admittedly, Applicants availed loan and created mortgage against the schedule ;$,".-mr the loan facilities, Applicants committed default in repaying the lc as per the terms of the loan agreement and so, ith.^{?on, E$J0e} as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI and demand notice and possession notice to the 3

¶37

Applicants 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 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶38

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicants as NpA on 06.12.2024 as per the guidelines of RBI, Respondent issued demand notice

¶39

dt.O9.12.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.19.O2.2O25 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs liled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice dt.19.02.2025 against the schedule property.

¶40

¶41

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld. Ijudge,^{Suryapet u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2002} 25 for appointment of advocate commissioner for n of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Khammam "'-^i'i {[ter ocpnpj$er-ing thp i! mate.ial on record, appointed advocate .3&rn#"9,"fl81dq2["tirr}^{piv"i"rrpossession of the schedulepropert5, and} i.aU.h$ia '''fi$;mt&; advocate-puilissioner issued notice 4 to the Applicants to vacate

¶42

the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are perfectly regal and valid.

¶43

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are 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,2O02. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶44

Polnt No.(tl)t

¶45

In the result, 5A248125 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶46

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

¶47

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.s, transcribed bg her, conected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 20th daA of MaA, 2026)

¶49

sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

'/6,.- "W
lP d"b
*
2 0 r{AY
l
:ohi.-w

¶51

N"y\3%

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani v. Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani v. Grihum 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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vaikunta Kumara Datta

Gundu Krishanveni versus City Union Bank Limited

Ms Vamsi Furniture Industries versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Samalla Latha

State Bank of India versus M/S. Godavari Polymers Private Limited

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy versus State Bank of India