Dismissed

Kedari Kusuma And Others v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

DRT4 Mar 2026SA/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging possession proceedings under Section 14. The applicant alleged procedural defaults regarding notice issuance and publication. The Tribunal found the creditor had duly followed statutory procedures including demand notice, possession notice, newspaper publication, and affixation. Consequently, th

What did the court decide?

Application SA 28/2024 dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Kedari Kusuma And Others versus Shriram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

rN THE DEBTS RECovERyTRTBUNAL- r hT nyoERaeeo

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE4TH DAYOFMARCH, 2C)26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.2a,/2024

¶5

Kedari Kusuma, S/o Veeresham, Aged 58 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 16-5-255, Underbridge Road, Warangal ... Applicant Versus Shriram Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, Branch oflice: M.G. Road, Pochamma Maidanam, Warangal- 1 ... Respondent Counsel for tle Applicant : Si T.Sidhar Reddg Counsel for Respondent : Si N.Ragluueer Reserued on : 21.01.2O26 Pronounced on :02.03.2O26 Uploaded on :04.03.2026

¶6

ORDER

¶7

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the,-,..orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.132123 and also to ddc.lare the same as illegal and void. 5t'^',, r 0 q ffAfi ,n3r ,, ,i The averments made in tlie'dp"plicatiqit, in brief, are that: ,'f""ili$es from the Respondent and The Applicant gvad:g "..dit regularly paying thoinstalmentg,,All of a sudden, on23.O1.2024, some

¶8

persons claiming to be the recovery agents of the Respondent along with advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and demanded the Applicant to vacate the schedule properties and served copy of vacate notice dt.22.O1.2O24 and possession notice dt.10.0g.2023 issued by the Respondent. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt. 10.08.2023 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶9

¶10

The Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default and so, the loan account was classilied as NPA and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Subsequently, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property as per the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.134 /23 after duly issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶11

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

¶12

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶13

has establisted ang ualid grounds for initiated bg the Respondent for taking

¶14

i,^* rnq,!",ffi1?[ffi""^{of ilSeschedute properts u/s 14 of tte SARFAESI} a"tizbcb"iih n ;ngn itt aduocate commissioner?

¶15

ii. To tthat relief ?

¶16

Point.lYo.(i):-

¶17

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

¶18

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant ava ed roan from the Respondent and created equitabre mortgage in respect of the schedure property to secure the said 10an and thereafter committed defaurt in repaying the loan dues.

¶19

8' The specilic contention of the Appricant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following Rule S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedure property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 0f the sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶20

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and,

¶21

To substantiate their contention,, lespondent rrled material documents along with the Reply nlea ty them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classiffirlg ,the loa-n account of the Applicant as NpA, the

¶22

Respondent issued demand notice dt.2a.O4 .2023 u/ s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 10.08.2023 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant 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 of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly foliowed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(U&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt. 10.08.2023 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,20O2 for taking possession ofthe schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶23

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, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession ofthe secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ii.CJM, Warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.l32l23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Id.CJM, Warangal after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule pJoperty and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicailt^'ts vacate the schedule propert5r and the said ' :r'.,^t notice wab admittedly served"bn:ithe Applicant. ornaRzrla j

¶24

So, condldering all the".-oireumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So,

¶25

I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶26

Point No.(ti):-

¶27

In the result, sA 28/2024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶28

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

¶29

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 4th dag of March, 2026)

¶31

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

0 I illln 2016
d"{tffry,
.ffiffi!,,,

¶33

Kedari Kusuma And Others v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedari Kusuma And Others v. Shriram Finance 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mrs. Zeba Parveen

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Sudheer Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Maatha Foods Industries

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited versus Indusind Bank Limited

Srivani Medi versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Juluri Sai Krishna