Allowed

Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Repco Home Finance Limited

DRT10 Aug 2026SA/279/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to set aside measures initiated by a NBFC under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Setting aside notices dated 16.12.2023 and 27.04.2024 due to alleged non-compliance with procedural mandates. Respondent was ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Set aside demand notice dated 16.12.2023 and possession notice dated 27.04.2024; interlocutory applications closed. No order as to costs.

Venkata Ramana Reddy versus Repco Home Finance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 279 OF 2026

¶5

K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o K. Venkatarami Reddy, D.No.19-1268-1, Bhagy Nagar Colony, Ward No.19, Jamalamadugu, Kadapa District.

¶6

Also, at, M/s. Vyshnavi Enterprises, D.No.9/567, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

¶7

K. Sashikala (Co-Borrower), W/o K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, D.No. 19-1268 1, Bhagy Nagar Colony, Ward No. 19, Jamalamadugu, Kadapa District

¶8

P. VenkataSubhaiah (Guarantor), S/o. P. Eswariah, D.No. 19-1268-1, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Jamalamadugu, Kadapa District.

¶9

Also, at, Post Man, India Post Office, Jamallamadugu East, Kadapa District.

¶10

Also, at, M/s. Vyshnavi Industries, D, No.2 1/48/K/5/A, Peddapasupula Road, Jamallamadugu, Kadapa^District.

¶11

M. Nagendra Prasad^(Guarantor), S/o. B, Narasimhulu,^{D.No. 2U56-2B,} Teachers ColonY, Jamalamadugu, Kadapa District

¶12

........Applicants

¶13

Versus

¶14

M/s Repco Home^{FinanceLimited,} Rep. by its Authorized^Officer, M/s G. SandeeP,^{S/o G. Rama Rao,} Aged about³⁵ Years,^{BranchManager,}

Page 2 of 4

sA No. 27912026

.....Respondent

Repco Home Finance^{Limited,NGOs Colony,} Kadapa City, Y.S.R.^KadaPa District, Andhra Pradesh

¶19

Counsel for the^APPlicants Counsel for ResPondent

¶20

: Mr, P.B. Sainath : Ex-parte

¶21

-:ORDER:-

¶22

The^{present Securitization Applicationis filed by the Applicants} u/s.L7 of the securitisation^{and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of^{SecurityInterest Act, 2OO2 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set aside all the^{measures initiated by the respondent} company under Section^{13 of the Act, 2002,includingthe proposed} action of taking^{physical possession of the SA scheduleproperty} pursuant to the Vacate Notice daled^{27.04.2026issued in execution} of the warrant^{passed in Crl'M.P.No.l23 of 2026.}

¶23

The averments in the application,^{briefly stated, are that} respondent bank sanctioned a^{housingloan of Rs. 15 Lakhs in the} yeat 2014 against the mortgage of the SA^{ScheduleProperty'The} applicants contends that the loan account^{was initiallyserviced} regularly; however, due to severe financial^{losses sufferedin business} following the COVID-19^pandemic, defaults occurred^{in repayment.} The applicants allege that the respondent bank illegally classified^the loan account as a NPA on 29.08.2023 in violation of the RBI guidelines. It is specifically contended that the demand notice dated t6.12.2023 under section 13(2) was not issued in accordance to the law and possession notice dated 27.04.2024 under Section 13(4) were not duly served or affixed on the secured asset and publish the same in two leading newspaper as mandated under Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short). Hence, appticants ,rrr,,hrff.J.Sting the

O/'$'v"

Page 3 of 4

SANo.27912026

measures initiated by the respondent company^{againstthe SA} Schedule Property.

¶28

Summons served on respondent^{and was set exparteon} 23.07.2026 as called absent^{and no representation.}

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the^{applicants. Perused the material} brought on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the^{applicantsreiterated the content of its} application and submits^{that respondentcompany wrongfully} classified the account^{as NPA. Learnedcounsel allegesrespondent} company having failed to^{serve the possessionnotice undersection} 13(4) of the Act and^{complianceof the Rule 8(1) and B(2) of the} Rules, hence the^{measuresinitiatedby the respondentcompany} against the SA Schedule^{Propertyis to be interdicted'}

¶31

6'Ihaveconsideredthesubmissionsadvancedbythelearned counsel for the^{applicantsand perused the material available on} record. The^{principal contention of the applicants is that the} respondent company^{has failed to comply with the mandatory} provisions of the SARFAESI^{Act and Rules, 2002 while initiating} measures against the^{secured asset. Itis well settled that the} securedcreditorisboundtostrictlyadheretotheprocedure prescribedundertheActandtheRules,andanydeviationfromthe mandatory^{provisions would vitiate themeasures initiated} thereunder. In the^{present case, despite due serviceof summons' the} respondent company^{has chosento remain absentand has been set} ex parte. Consequently,^{there is no materialplacedon record to} controvert or disprove^{the specific allegations of non-compliance with} the staturory^{provisions.The averments mafi$Yg)).fo applicants,}

U4o**-

Page 4 of 4

5ANo.27912026

therefore, remain unrebutted and unchailenged. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Tribunar finds no reason to disbelieve the case set up by the applicants. Accordingly, the Securitisation Application deserves to be allowed.

¶36

7' In the resurt, the present Securitization Apprication is ailowed by setting aside demand notice dated 16.12.2023 under section 13(2) of the Act and possession notice dated 27.o4.2024 under section 13(4) of the Acr.

¶37

B. ConsequenUy, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

No order as to costs,

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶40

(Typed,to my dictotion by the steno., corrected, signed ond pronounced bv m the 10" day ol August, 2026). ' // ffi$K"

¶41

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Repco Home 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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Lakshmi Kalyan Venkateswara Chips unit

Bank of Baroda versus Sreenu

Ms Laxmi Balaji Marketing versus Icici Bank Limited

Syed Taj Peer versus Idbi Bank

Mr Chinthareddy Yeshwanth Reddy versus Bank of India

S Venkateswarlu versus Union Bank of India