Dismissed

Ms Seven Hills Medical and General Stores v. Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd.

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/26/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act application filed by borrower to quash possession notice issued by secured creditor. Court found borrower failed to prove violation of procedural rules despite claim regarding notification and publication, relying on records submitted by respondent.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No. 26 of 2025 is dismissed as the possession notice is not liable to be quashed.

Ms Seven Hills Medical and General Stores versus Neo Growth… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. 26 oF 2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

M/s. 7 Hills Medical and General Stores Rep by its^prop, Rekha D/o Sonkar Ganesh Aged about 34 years Occ: Business H. No. 6-3-665/6 Opp: NIMS Hospitat Punjagutta, Hyderabad-72.

¶6

......Appticant.

¶7

AND

¶8

Neo Growth Credit pvt. Ltd. R9p by its Authorised Officer 9tn Floor, Tower-E Times Square, AndheriK.urla Road, Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai 500 059.

¶9

.....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu. Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V. Santosh.

¶11

.:ORDER:-

¶12

The Appricant fired the present Apprication u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) assailing the possession Notice 23,L2.2024 issued bv the u'Y*',

¶13

sA.No.26/202s

¶14

Respondent u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 in respect of the application schedule property,

¶15

The case of the applicant as per the averments in the SA, in brief, is that respondent sanctioned over draft roan of Rs.34,76,000/- on 24.03.2022 against mortgage of SA schedule property. Due to loss in business, applicant was unable to pay some loan instalments. Applicant approached the respondent to allow deposit of overdue instalments and regularisation of the account. At that stage, applicant was handed over a photostat copies of documents relating to the securitisation measures initiated by the respondent. Respondent has faired to follow due process of law in affixing and publishing the possession notice. Respondent failed to consider the reply/ objections raised against the demand noilce issued u/s 13(2) of the Act and therefore all subsequent proceedings are bad in law.

¶16

J.) The Respondent filed its reply statement. The submissions of the respondent as per the averments in the reply statement, in brief, are:

¶17

Consequent to irregularity in repayment of loan amount as per the agreed terms, the loan account was declared as NpA on 02.08.2024, followed by demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI aCT dated 24.09.2024. Applicant neither responded to the demand notice nor cleared the dues. The respondent followed due process of law in issuing the possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act. proof of derivery of demand notice, possession notice and the pubrication of said notices in newspapers is fited with the repty statement. OY.otU

¶18

SA.No.26/202s

¶19

Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent bank would submit that applicants admitted availment of loans and default in repayment. However, the allegations attributing violation of provisions of SARFAESI Act and the Rules thereunder in serving the demand notice u/s 13(2) and^possession notice u/s 13(4) and affixture and publication of^possession notice in two newspapers are false and invented for the^purpose of filing the present SA. Proof of service of demand notice and possession notice and affixture and publication of the possession notice is filed along with the reply statement vide material documents at pages 15 to 37. Hence there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) the SARFAESI Act and the Rules in serving notices as mandated under the Act. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA in the interest of justice.

¶21

The points that arise for consideration are,-

¶22

Ilhether the Applicants have made out any valid grounds for setting aside the possession nolice dated 23.12.2024 issued u./s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act? ii) To what relieJ?

¶23

Point No.(il:-

¶24

The applicant's contention of there being a violation of provisions of Rules B(1) and B(2) of the fgcurity Interest M*

¶25

¶26

5A.No.26/2025

¶27

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is disproved by virtue of material papers from pages 1 to 37 annexed to the reply statement. A perusal of these material papers leaves no room for doubt over the compliance of provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002 by the respondent Company in serving the notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) on the applicant. The authenticity of the documents has not been disputed by the applicant.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the Applicant has failed to make out any valid ground for quashing the possession Notice dated 23.L2.2024 issued by the Respondent. Therefore, the present Securitization Application is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed,

¶29

Point No.(iil:-

¶30

In the result, the present Securitization Application fails and same is hereby dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

Communicate. a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in official Web^portal,

¶33

(Dictated to. the Steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2id day of March; 2026).

¶34

(fuiytttt

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Seven Hills Medical and General Stores v. Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Seven Hills Medical and General Stores v. Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd.

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

J Venkata Ramana Moorthy versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction

Bank of India versus M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Keshapaga Anjaneyulu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank