Dismissed

Gatla Srikanth v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT11 Sept 2026SA/281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, the Applicant challenged measures initiated by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. under the SARFAESI Act, including the taking of physical possession of secured assets and a vacate notice. The core grievance involved allegations of improper service of notices, failure to afford opportunity for representation, and wrongful classification of the loan account as NPA without following RBI guidelines. The Tribunal reviewed the records, including evidence of service by publication and affixture, and dismissed the application for failure to substantiate claims.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed; the stay on taking physical possession granted in a interlocutory application dated 30.06.2025 was vacated; and interlocutory applications pending were closed.

Gatla Srikanth versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIVESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^{(Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^No. 281^{OF 2025}

¶5

Mr. Gatla Srikanth S/o. G. Laxminarayana Aged about 42^years, Occ:^{Business, Gender:Male,} R/o. Plot No. 17, IAL Colony, Padmanabha Nagar, Thirumulgherry, Secunderabad - 5OOO23

¶6

. ' '.........Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

lvl/s. LIC Housinq Finance^Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised^Officer Otf i # 304,3rd^{Floor, Maithrivanam,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰³⁸

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the APP|icant : Mr. B. Ravikiran Singh Counsel for^Respondent : M/s. Hari Prasad Podila

¶11

-: Q-B-P-EB:-

¶12

The^present Securitization^{Applicationis filed by the Applicant} uls.77 of the Securitisation^{and Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of^{SecurityInterest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short) to set^aside all^{measuresinitiatedby the Respondentunder} section 14 of the^{Act, including the action takenfor obtainingphysical} possession of the SA Schedule^{Property pursuant to the vacatenotice} dated 10.06.2025,^{issuedin pursuanceof the order passed in} crl.M.P.No.59 of^{2025 by the Hon'ble I Additional Seniorcivil ludge} cum Additional^{Chief Judicial Magistrateat Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict'}

¶13

The averments^{of the application, in brief, are that the} Applicant claims^{absolute ownershipand peacefulpossessionof the} S.A. Schedule^{Propertyby virtue of RegisteredSale Deedbearing} Doc. No.4213l16^{dared 17.0s.2016. -n" oor,,.uzffir*^.rnu,,n"}

¶14

Page 2 of5

¶15

sA No. 28u202s

¶16

Respondent, being a Housing Finance Company and secured creditor, initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the property in violation of the statutory procedure. It is alleged that the Demand Notice dated 09.10.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was never served upon the Applicant. The Applicant further contends that no effective opportunity was afforded to submit a representation under Section 13(3-A) of the Act before issuance of the possession Notice dated 28.09.2022 and taking of symbolic possession. The Appticant also challenges the classification of the loan account as NpA on the ground that the same was made without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justiae. It is further alleged that the actions of the Respondent are arbitrary, discriminatory and without legal sanctity. On these grounds, the Applicant challenges the Vacate Notice dated 10.06.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and Crt.M. p.N o.59/2025, and seeks setring aside of the said notice and the consequential proceedings.

¶17

The Respondent Company filed its reply statement along with supporting documents. The averments thereof, in brief, are that the Applicant has suppressed material facts and that the S.A. is liable to be dismissed in limine, as the Applicant has challenged onty the vacate notice dated 10.06.2025 without assailing the order passed under Section 14 or the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant avaited the credit facility by creating an equitable mortgage, that the account was classified as NpA on 10.08.2021, and that the Demand Notice dated 18.05.2022 and possession Notice dated 2g.0g.2022 were duly served by pubrication and affixation after postar service was returned unserved. It is further contended that, pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 in Crl.M.p.N o' 7 3 2 / 2 02 s'' ot n n' ru*{:'"'

¶18

Page 3 of5

¶19

sA No. 28u202s

¶20

were initiated, which order has^{not been challenged by the ApPlicant.} The Respondent denies any^{violationof Sections 13(3A)or 13(4)and} asserts that all^{measureswereundertaken in accordancewithlaw} and^principles of natural^{justice. Accordingly, respondent prays for} dlsmissal of the SA.

¶21

Learned counsel for the^{applicant reported that orders maybe} passed based on records. Heard^{learned counsel for the respondent'} Perused the material^{brought on record.}

¶22

Learned counsel^{for the RespondentCompany,deny the} averments^{madein the sA and placed reliance upon the documents} filed along with the^{reply. It is submitted that the loan accountwas} duly classified as^{NPA in accordancewith the applicable RBI} guidelines and that the^{Respondent Company had strictly complied} with the^{procedure prescrlbed underthe SARFAESIAct and the Rules'} 2002. Accordingly,^{Learned Counsel prayed for dismissalof the SA'}

¶23

The^{points for consideration are as follows : -}

¶24

i) whether^{the Applicant madeout any valid ground for} ' quashing the iction of the Respondent for taking the /hysicai^{possessionof the SA schedule propertythrough} Tivocati^{commissioner appointedunder the provision of} the Section^{14 of the SARFESIAct?}

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i'l:

¶27

The^{Applicanthas contended that the loan accountwas} wrongfully classified^{as NPAand that the Respondent failed to adhere} to the applicable^{RBI guidelines'However,the Applicant has neither} specified the Particular^{RBI guidelinesallegedlv} "t'"ffiiiii

¶28

PaSe 4 of5

¶29

SA No. 28V2025

¶30

record any material or documentary evidence in support of the said contention. Hence, the said allegation remains unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted therefore is hereby rejected.

¶31

The Respondent Company relied on copies of documents annexed with the reply statement. pages 07 to 15 of the Respondent's reply contain photostat coptes of the postal return covers pertaining to the Demand Notice, copies of the newspaper publications of the said notice in English and vernacular languages, and photographs evidencing affixture of the notice, thereby demonstrating compliance with the prescribed mode of service of the Demand Notice. Similarly, pages 16 to 22 contain photostat copies of the postal receipts and returned covers evidencing issuance of the Possession Notice dated 29.O9.2022. Copies of the newspaper publications of the said possession Notice in English and vernacutar languages, along with photographs evidencing affixture of the notice, have also been placed on record. In view of sufficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act read with Rules 3, 8(1) & 8(2) of the Rutes, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Company initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶32

In view of the foregoing observations, this Tribunal finds that the Applicant has failed to establish any ground warranting interference with the measures initiated by the Respondent Company under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including the action for taking physical possession of the SA Schedute property. Accordinqly, the SA is tiabte to be dismissed. @*,o

Point No.(ii't:

Page 5 of 5

SA No. 28U202s

In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby d ism issed .

¶37

Consequently, stay granted vide order dated 30.06.2025 in IA.No.1802 of 2025 in the SA stands vacated and Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

L2, 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^{pronouncedby mein the open courton this} the 11'h day of september, 2026).

¶41

tAN$ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

sA.NO.281l202s

70.07 .2026.

18.08.2026

Counsel for respondent, Sri S Ramesh representing RS counsel ror appricant reported no objection and counter in IAs 2350 and 2351/26 filed by respondent to reopen case. Heard and pcrused, sincc petition filed reply statement and allowed subject lo p.rfitroner being ready for arguments. For compliancc, caii on 24.07.2026.

¶46

,^{'.|y</sup> _ P:O}

¶47

Heard respondent through Sri A Vijay Kumar representing PHP. Counsel for applicant present. For orders, call on 11.09.2026. Both parties are at liberty to file written arguments on or before 04.09.2026 after exchanging between them. e\s $ ft lv*rfutut^--'\i,

¶48

P.O.

¶49

11.09.2026.

¶50

Orders^{pronouncedvide separatesheets' In the result, the} securitisation^{applicationfails and is herebydismissed'} Consequently,^{staygrantedvide order dated 30'06'2025} in fa.frfo.fgoz of^{2b25 in the SA stands vacatedand} interlocutory Applications^{pending, if any, shall stand} closed. No^{order as to costs. Communicatea copy of this} order to the^{parties concernedand upload in the official} website. 0M# P.O.

Gatla Srikanth v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gatla Srikanth v. LIC Housing 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

Similar cases

Srinivas Gadwala versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Prasanna Lakshmi a Guptha

Icici Bank Limited versus M L Chandra Hasa

Ms Amaravathi Hp Gas Agency versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Chintala Narendra

Indian Bank versus M S R K Traders