Dismissed

Smt Siddula Durga v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT5 Feb 2026SA/278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Smt. Siddula Durga challenged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act proceedings initiated by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. for taking physical possession of mortgaged property via advocate commissioner, arguing lack of proper notice and service post-borrower's demise. The Tribunal found the borrower's default was established, statutory notices were properly issued and served prior to his death, a

What did the court decide?

The secured creditor’s application was dismissed; proceedings for taking physical possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were upheld as legal and valid.

Smt Siddula Durga versus Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-^{I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

sA.No.278/2023

¶5

Smt. Siddula Durga, W/o late Baburao, Aged 31years, Occ:house^wife, H.No.22-2-164, Nehru^nagar, Palvoncha, Khammam-SO7^{I 15}

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram City Union Finance^Ltd., 3-6-478,Sft floor, Anand^Estates, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500 029 Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶9

... ResPondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri D. Bhanu Pratap : Si P. Ramachandran Counsel for Respondent

¶11

:08.01.2O25

¶12

Reserued on :08.01.2O25 Pronounced on :05.02.2026 Uploaded on :06.02.2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application is Iiled^{by the Applicant u/s'17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2, dnallenging the^{proceedingsinitiatedby the Respondent for} taking physical^possession of^{the schedule property throughAdvocate} commissioner pursuant to the^{ordersof Ld.CJM,Kothagudemin} Crl.M.P.No.4/ to the possession notice dt.26.^1O.2022 and to declaie {he S d void. &

¶15

The avermerit" -U.J. f,{Qn@orid n, in brief, are that:

¶16

\ffid#'

¶17

The Applicant is the wife of^{late Siddula BabuRao who availed loan} facilities from the Respondent and^{the borrower expired on 11.O7.2023} due to health problems.^{Now, the Applicant who is the wife of the} borrower along with minor boy are^{living in the scheduleproperty.A11} of a sudden, officials of the^{Respondent along with advocate} commissioner visited the^{scheduleproperty and threatenedthe} Applicant to vacate the schedule^{propertywithoutissuing any prior} notices. The Respondent failed to serve^{demand notice and possession} notice to the legal heirs of the borrower^{and so, the proceedingsinitiated} by the Respondent are not^{legal and valid. The impugned possession} notice dt.26.1O.2O22 was not^{publishedin two leading newspapers and} also not affixed on the schedule^{property.Hencethe SA.}

¶18

Respondent filed Reply denying all^{the adverse allegations made in the} SA and contended that^{the husband of the Applicantavailed housing} loan of Rs.25 lakhs by creating^{mortgageagainst the schedule property.} In view of the default committed by^{the borrower, the loanaccount was} classilied as NPA on 08.06.2021^{as per the guidelinesof RBI. So, the} Bank issued demand notice^{dt. 10.05.2022 and sent the same to the} borrower and the said notice^{was also publishedintwo daily} newspapers. Despite the^receipt of^{notice, there is no responsefrom} the husband of the Applicant^{i.e. borrowerso, the Respondent issued} possession notice dt.26.1O.2O22 u/s 13(4)^{of the SARFAESIAct,20O2} and the sent the said^{notice to the borrower and guarantors and the} said notice was^{published in NavaTelanganaand HansIndia and the} same was also affixed^{on the scheduleproperty.It is furthersubmitted} that on the date of^{issuingdemand noticeand possessionnotice,the} d i.e. the borrower is^{very muchalive andhe died on} when the advocate commissioner^wasaboutto ,' . take ,^{the Respondentcame to know about the} )t ",deat8^gf Sgqffiwera ,^{there is no needto issuefresh notices to the} Applicant and the noti issued by the Respondent are legal^{and valid.} followed the procedure^{prescribed under the}

¶19

provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding against the secured asset u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent^prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶22

i. whether tle Applicant has established ang ualid^grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propertg u/ s 14 of tle SARFIIESI Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶23

ii. To uthat relief?

¶24

Point IVo.(i):-

¶25

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^{and Ld.} Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶26

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the one Siddula Babu Rao availed housing loan from the Respondent by creating mortgageⁱⁿ respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed defaultⁱⁿ repaying the loan dues and he expired on 11.07.2023 and the Applicant herein is the wife of the borrower.

¶27

B. of the Applicant is that the Respondent without possession notice to the legal heirs of the initiated proceedings for taking physical property through advocate commissioner u/s

¶28

14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 without following due process of law and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶29

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the borrower and also in initiating proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶30

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with Reply. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the borrower as NPA, Respondent issued Demand notice dt.10.05.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 alrd the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements frled by the Respondent and the said notice was received by one Sidduia Nageswara Rao. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the borrower. When the borrower failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.26.1O.2O22 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2002 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others 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 ofpaper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contpmplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest ' ..i' -::. , ''' tf 2OO2 rn issuing the impugned possession notice dt.-26n1O.2OZB u of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession 1 Since the impugned notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) orfi" ""n$t" "l^{rh. $Afftfsr#ct,2902 are issuedduring the life timeof the borrower,} there is no needl-d issup fresh notices to the legal heirs of the borrower as

¶31

¶32

the borrower i.e. husband of the Applicant expired ot ll.O7 .2023. However, the Respondent has no knowledge of the said fact of demise of the borrower till the Respondent visited the schedule property along with the advocate commissioner for taking physical^possession of the schedule property. So, the impugned demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶33

¶34

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, tl:e 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 borrower, Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Kothagudem Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by f/ling Crl.M.P.No.4/ 2023 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Kothagudem, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly legal and valid.

¶35

t2. So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is 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 sched s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point i f the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶36

point No.(ifi):_, ir?. )rW

¶37

In the reStrlt, SA 278127, as there are no merits. '. .t, I

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Actated to the P.S, tronscibed bg her, conected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the Sth day of February,2026)

¶41

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

{6'*rt/i
P+s

¶43

n\w%
"'"y' i;"

¶44

Smt Siddula Durga v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Siddula Durga 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

Karthik Singh Deepawale versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Mrs Urmila Goel versus Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Sri Kolluri Adithya Sai

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mbr Exims Pvt. Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Saritha Industries

Navneeta Agarwal versus State Bank of India