Dismissed

Moola Shravan Kumar Goud v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT29 May 2026SA/250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitisation Application filed by Moola Shravan Kumar Goud seeking to set aside SARFAESI proceedings initiated by Shriram Finance Limited. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove non-compliance with statutory requirements despite documentation placed on record proving proper service of notices and publication.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed. The measures initiated by the Respondent Company are upheld.

Moola Shravan Kumar Goud versus Shriram Finance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No. 250 OF 2025

¶5

l.4r Moola Shravan Kumar Goud, S/o. Moola Satyana raya na, Agedi 42 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.35, D No.7-11 (Old No.7-70), Taramatipet, Kuntloor, Hayathnagar, Ranga. Reddy Disrict-501505

¶6

.......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram Fina nce Limited, # 6th Floor (level 2) Building No.Q2 Aurum Q Parc Gen 4-1TTC Thane Belapu r Road, Ghansoli, Navi lvlum bai-400710 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Kongara Kranthi Kumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N. Raghuveer

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant uls.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Company under section 13(2), 13(4) & 14 of the Act including advocate commissioner notice dated 28.05.2025 in^pursuance of order in Crl.M.P.No. 56 of 2025^passed by Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Chief lvletropolitan l4agistrate Ranga^Beddy District at L.B. Nagar in respect or the sA schedute erop.*y //,\6.y6

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

sA No. 250/2025

¶15

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the Applicant, along with his wife, Mrs. Moola Navaneetha, as coborrower and mortgagor, and Mr. Tulla Raghvendar Goud as coborrower, availed credit facility of Rs.20 Lakhs from Respondent Company in the year 2027. At the time of sanction of the loan, the Applicant executed the necessary loan and security documents in favour of the lender and alleges that the officials of the finance company also obtained his signatures on certain blank documents. Despite receipt of substantial repayments, the Respondent allegedly levied abnormal charges and excessive interest contrary to the quidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and thereafter classified the loan account as a NPA. The Applicant contends that the Respondent initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without complying with the mandatory statutory requirements. It is specifically alleged that no demand notice under Section 13(2) or possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was served upon the Applicant, co-borrowers, or guarantors. The Applicant further asserts that the possession notice was neither affixed on the secured asset nor published in two leading newspapers as required under Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules" for short). The Applicant claims that he became aware of these proceedings only upon receipt of a Vacation Notice dated 28.05.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner. Upon his request, a copy of the^possession Notice dated 13.04.2023 was furnished to him on the same date. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent acted in a hurried, arbitrary, mechanical, and mala fide manner, depriving the Applicant of a reasonable opportunity to regularize or repay the loan. With these contentlons applicants prays for setting aside the impurned SARFESI measures initiated against the SA Schedule prooe*y///\2^qS ' I'"o''

¶16

Page 3 of5

¶17

SA No. 250/2025

¶18

The Respondent Company filed reply statement along wlth documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that the loan transaction and borrowing arrangements are matters of record, the Respondent specifically denies the allegation that signatures were obtained on blank documents. It is further denied that the Applicant regularly paid the loan instalments. According to the Respondent, the Applicants committed^persistent defaults and failed to comply with the repayment obligations under the loan agreement, which alone necessitated the initiation of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The allegations regarding violation of RBI^guidelines are also denied, the Respondent maintaining that its claim is based on a valid and enforceable contract executed between the^parties. With regard to the SARFAESI^proceedings, the Respondent denies all allegations relating to non-service of statutory notices and asserts that due process under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was strictly followed. It states that notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were^duly issued and served, and that the secured asset was lawfully^classified as a NPA in accordance with RBI^guidelines. After compliance^{with the} statutory requirements,^proceedings under Sections 13(2),^13(4), and 14 were initiated, resulting in the filing of Crl.M.P.No.⁵⁶ of²⁰²⁵ before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar. The Court allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner^to take^{physicalpossession} of the secured asset. It further^{states that} the necessary documents evidencing compliance with^{Sections 13(2)} and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, including^{proof of service,publication} in vernacular newspapers, and^photographs showing^symbolic possession of the secured asset, have already been^placed on^record before the Tribunat. Hence, SA^{is liable} to^oe disnisse{fif+

¶19

Page 4 of 5

¶20

sA No.250/2025

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Applicant reported that order may be passed based on record while learned counsel for the Respondent Company submitted written arguments, Perused the written arguments filed by the Respondent Company and also perused the material brought on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Respondent Company denied the averments of the Applicant and relied upon the list of documents filed separately. It is submitted that the Applicant's account was classified as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines and that the Respondent Company had strictly followed the due procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the S.A.

¶23

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule property as prayed for?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

Admittedly, the Applicant availed credit facility against mortgage of the SA schedule property as security, and a perusal of the statement of account reflects default in repayment. Hence, the action of the Respondent Bank in initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be termed illegal or irregular as contended by the Applicant.

¶28

The Respondent Company relied upon the list of documents filed separately as proof of compliance of du"-frw'li*^

¶29

Page 5 of 5

¶30

' SA No. 25012025

¶31

perusal of the same confirms that the Applicant received the demand notice through post as evident by the photostat copies of postal receipt and track consignment. Copies of postal receipts, returned covers, newspaper publications (English and Telugu dailies) and photographs evidencing affixture of the possession notice at a conspicuous place on the scheduled property are also placed on record. These documents are not disputed by the applicant. The applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures taken by the respondent bank against the schedule property under the provisions of the Act, 2002. Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

In view of above observation, it is concluded that the Applicant failed to establish any ground to set aside the measure from taking physical possession by the Respondent Company under the Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable o be dismissed.

¶33

Point No.(ii'l:

¶34

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in 2g'h doy of Mdy,2026).

¶37

SHWAR KOTHE) SIDING OFFICER

Moola Shravan Kumar Goud v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moola Shravan Kumar Goud v. Shriram 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

Bobbati Ashok Kumar Reddy versus Canara Bank

B Rangamma versus tadiprtri coopertive

Champak Guha versus Canara Bank

M/s.Switchgear Protections, versus Union Bank of India

Mekala Mohan versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Mekala Surukasi Yadav Alias Gurukasi Yadav versus Shriram Finance Limited