Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to quash a possession notice issued by IIFL Home Finance Ltd. due to lack of evidence proving the金融机构 followed statutory procedures for non-attainment of possession.
Quashed the impugned Possession Notice dt. 13.05.2025 issued by Respondents against the schedule property.
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 RECOVERYTRIBUNAL * 1 AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE 4TH DAYOFAUGUST, 2C26
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.256,/2C25
Jadi Sugender, S/o Ramulu, aged 40 years, Occ:pvt. employee, R/o H.No. 1-24, Morriguda village, Jannaram Mandal, Adilabad-SO4 2Os
... Applicant
Versus
H.No. 1,5/213 /7, Kaimnagar Road, Opp. Registration Office, Govindapalli Jagtial-SO5 327.
.. . Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant .' Sn K. Suresh Counsel for the Respondents : Si N.B. Sudarshan
Reserued on : 14.07.2026 Pronounced on :04.08.2026 Uploaded to tlrc website on :04.08.2026
ORDER
The Applicant availed Home loan of Rs.5,40,000/- from the rst Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property and the Applicant was regularly paying the loan instalments. Thereafter due to loss of job, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. The Respondents illegally declared the loan account of the Applicant as NpA and issue demand notice dt.o6.o2.2o25 and even after issuance of the demand notice, the Applicant paid substantial amounts. without considering the same, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 13.0s.202s and the said notice was not published in two newspapers and not affixed on the schedule property and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.
! i.' 5. consideration are
2
Point .l\Io.(il:-
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
...,Responderi,ts have?trQ1 evinced any interest and failed to file material
that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondents against the SA schedule propert5r under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.
Point No.(iii)t
(Dictated to tlrc P.S, transcibed. bg her, conected., signed and pronounced bg me in the open courl on this the 4lh dag of Augas\ 2026) '.'...,:,.
. :,1 r."'.. .,
i. , i
r'. r'.. l
"t-. ..:)
' :.. ir ";'
.t ., .t "|; \
i -'. 'll
i: '' j'i srrl]0um$ - a.l:"i!
',ii;h, .,.... "-o.ie-5'. --11. HvnF+J" r" {0.
\g::i';.'
sd/(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established valid grounds challenging the Possession Notice issued by Respondents against the schedule property?
Whether the Respondents duly followed the procedure under the SARFAESI Act and Rules in issuing notices?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jadi Sugender
IIFL Home Finance Ltd.
Sri Gummadu Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
