Dismissed

M s Pavan General Engineering Works v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT1 Sept 2026SA/287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In service under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, issued a possession notice. The tribunal held that respondents followed mandatory procedures including service and newspaper publication, dismissing the applicants application and declaring the notice valid.

What did the court decide?

The Impugned Possession Notice dated 02.05.2025 was declared legal, valid, and the application was dismissed.

M s Pavan General Engineering Works versus Shriram Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE ,1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.2A7/2025

¶5

M/s Pavan General Engineering Works Rep. by its Prop.Shri Kondamunja Mahender, H.No.24 1-A, Akkannapet Road, Husnabad, Karimnagar-S0s 467 .

¶6

Sri Kondamunja Mahender, S/o Mallaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, H.No.2-40, Gandhinagar, Thotapalle(S) Husnabad, Karimnagar-S}S 467 . ... Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram Finance Ltd. Regd. Oflice at Sri Towers, Plot No.l4A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chenai-600032.

¶9

Shriram Finance Ltd., Administrative office at

¶10

6d floor, Level 2, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Ger. 411, TTC, .,:" ... Thane Belapur Road, ..^'.. - : Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-4oo 71O.." \ r: :

¶11

1. Shriram Finance Ltd., ." "l. I . D-^-^l^ ^+^{LI l\T^ la Al l-} .'' + Branch at H.No. 12-45/5,^{' ;{} 1 z n- _ Beside Bus Stand, HusnaUad, ";i .., Karimnagar-Sos 467 . li

¶12

Counsel for tle Applicants

¶13

Counsel for Respondents

¶14

Reserued on : 17.07.2026 Pronounced on :01.09.2026 Uploaded on :01.09.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1 . This application is filed by the Applicants u/ s. 17 of the SARFAESI^Act, 2002, challenging the Possession Notice dt.02.05.2025^{issued by the} Respondents against the schedule^property and to declare the^{same as} illegal and void.

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:^.

¶18

Applicant No. t herein is the main borrower and Applicant^{No.2 is the} proprietor of Applicant No. 1 and co-applicant and also guarantor to the home loan availed from the Respondents against the mortgage of schedule property. Due to unforeseen economic conditions,^the business of the Applicants suffered and so, the Applicants^{could not} pay some instalments. Suddenly, the Respondents initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and threatened the Applicants to vacate the schedule^{property. The} Respondents failed to serve demand notice and^possession notice^{to the} Applicants and the impugned possession notice was neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶19

a The Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant No.l availed Enterprise Finance loan of Rs.60 lakhs from the Respondents for running business against the mortgage of schedule^property and not home loan as alleged by them. After availing loan, the Applicants cgmmittpd default and S6, the loan account was classified as NPA on ,... I '-.',, .- q8,07:2024:rqfi$-accordingly, the Respondents issued demand notice "and pos'!essi8fu&*t". to the Applicants and the said possession notice was published ffi tto daily newspapers and the same was also affixed [.,' tnel""i$0rt.$Sp..ty. Thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondents..p.aid! to dismiss the SA. -_..,.'.. .:!

¶20

¶21

-".'

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsei for the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for the

¶23

Respondents. Perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶25

uhetter the Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for challenging the impugned Possession Notice dt.02.05.2025 issued bg the Respondents against the schedule propertA?

¶26

ii. To uhat relief ?

¶27

Point No.lil :-

¶28

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

¶29

7 . The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 availed loan from the Respondents against the mortgage of schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondents. Subsequently, the Respondents initiated proceedings under the provisions SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued possession notice dt.02.05.2025 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2.

¶30

The specilic con e Applicants is that the Respondents without serving d on notice, trying to take physical possessio 01StPffi

¶31

that admittedly, the Applicant No.1 loan from the Respondents against

¶32

the mortgage of the schedule property. After availing the loan, Applicant No.1 admittedly committed default in^{repayingthe ioan dues as per the} terms of the loan agreement and so,^{the loan account was classifiedas} NPA as per the guidelines of RBI. Thereafter, the^{Respondentsissuedall} the mandatory notices to the Applicants and^{guarantors by dulyfollowing} the procedure contemplated under the^{provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2} and Rules made thereunder.

¶33

To substantiate their contention, Respondents^{hled materialdocuments} along with the Reply filed by them. As^{per the said documents,it is clear} that the Respondents issued demand notice dr.15.O2.2025^{and the said} notice was served on the Applicants as^{evidencedby the postal} acknowledgements Iiled by the Respondents.^{Thus there is valid serviceof} demand notice on the Applicants.^Thereafter, the^{Respondentsissued} possession notice dt.02.05.2o25 and the said notice was sent to^the Applicants and others through Regd.post as^{evidencedby the postal} acknowledgements Iiled by the Respondents.^{The said possession notice} was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced^{by the copiesof paper} publication hled by the Respondents and the said notice was affixed^{on the} schedule property as evidenced by the copy of^{photographfiled by the} Bank. Thus the Respondents have scrupulously followed^{Rule 8(1)(2) of} Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice dt.02. O5.2O25 u/s^{13(4) of the} Act and so, the said notice is perfectly legal and^{valid. Accordingly, this} point is answered in favour of the Respondents and against^the Appticants. i': ,^-)..,-. f -'' 'i,.i" ', _/,^;i. .- ,..,,. . ,l, f.' t. t;^i.: .a ' ,,i' tti Point No.(ii):- ll "- _^il ii : 01SFP:r.,,^":i ',-i ,,.., ir 11. In the result, SA\287 1.25 is dismissed as there are no^merits in^{the SA.} Consequently, the lnterlocutory fibplicati.ons,^pending if^{any, shall stand} /'" disposed of. No order as to costs. ;--j

¶34

¶35

1,2. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced. by me in the open court on this the 1"t daV of September, 2026)

¶37

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

DRr'r.^{#yllEF r.'4 4}

M s Pavan General Engineering Works v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Pavan General Engineering Works 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sirvi Marketing

South Indian Bank versus Ms. Mamidala Kavitha

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mrs. Jayasudha Routhu

State Bank of India versus Mrs.Chapa Ramana

S Charishma versus Hdfc Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Abhinav Industries