Dismissed

Shiv Shankar Mutton Supplier and Another v. Bajaj Finance Limited

DRT27 Aug 2026SA/287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a loan defaulters against notices issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court found the secured creditor had strictly complied with statutory requirements regarding service and publication of notices, rejecting claims of irregular classification as NPA.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending were closed.

Shiv Shankar Mutton Supplier and Another versus Bajaj Finance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE zTrH DAy oF AUGUST , 2026

¶3

, ,, .

¶4

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

¶5

Securitization Application No. 287 OF 2025

¶6

M/s Shiv Shankar Mutton Supplier Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Gogikar Shivshankar, Shop No.2, Macha Bolarum, Hyderabad - 500 010

¶7

Mr. Gogikar Shivshankar S/o. Gogikar Pandu,

¶8

R/o 2-3-524/55, Krishna Nagar Colony, Gangaputhra Sangoffi, Alwal, Bolarum, Hyderabad - 500 010

¶9

.....Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bajaj Finance Limited No.6-3-Bgt/892, 4th Floor, The Belvedere, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Circle,

¶12

Hyderabad - 500 082

¶13

Represented by its Authorised Officer

¶14

.....Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Applicants : M/s. G. K. Law Associates Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V. Santosh

¶16

.:ORDER:.

¶17

The present Securitization Application is filed by the^Applicant uls.l7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{("Act" hereinafterfor} short) assailing demand notice dated 10.03. 2025 under^section13(2) and possession notice dated L7.06.2025 under section^{13(4) of the} Act in respect of the sA Schedule prope,U.(ry*f€,\b

Page2ofs

SA No. 28712O2s

The averments of the application, in^{brief, are that the} Rgspondent-Bank sanctioned a loan of^{Rs.31,23,5t5/-in year 2024} Wltfr ,'!he^{S.A. Schedule Property offered as collateralsecurity.} However^due to^{closure of the businessthe applicant became} irregular in repayment consequently^{Bank issued} a^demandnotice dated 10.03 .2025 under Section 13(2) of^{the Act demandingand} classtfying the account as NPA as on 28.02.2025,^{whichclassification} is disputed as being contrary to RBI^{guidelines. They} further^contend that, despite explaining the circumstances to the^{Bank and receiving} assurances that the matter would be considered, the^{Bank proceeded} to issue the^possession notice dated t7.06.2025. It^{is specifically} aiteged that the^possession notice was neither duly served^{upon the} Applicants nor affixed at a conspicuous^place on the S.A. Schedule Pioperty as required under Rule B(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short) and that the notice itself is not in conformity with the statutory requirements. On the aforesaid grounds, the Applicants^pray for^quashing the impugned notices and all consequential measures initiated by the Respondent-Bank.

¶22

3: The Respondent Company filed its reply statement along with supporting documents. The averments thereof, in brief, are that Applicant had availed an SME Secured Loan of Rs.3t,23,515/- in^year 2024, and secured by equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the S.A. Schedule Property. It is stated that, upon^persistent default, the loan account was classified as NPA and the Respondent issued^a demand notice dated 10.03.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Act.^As the Applicant failed to clear the dues, the Respondent^proceeded under Section 13(4) and issued a^possession notice dated 2.8.07.2025, which was published in English and Telugu newspapers on 30.07.2025. The Respondent further states that^proceedings

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

SA No.28712025

¶25

under Section 14 were thereafter initiated,^pursuant to which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and, upon failure of the Applicant to comply with the vacate notice, partial^possession of the mortgaged property was taken on L7.02.2026. It is contended that the Respondent has duly complied with the^provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules and that the Applicant's^plea of^non- service is untenable,^particularly when the notices in^question were produced along with the S,A. The Respondent further alleges that the Applicant suppressed material facts relating to the^{proceedingsfor} physical possession and approached the Tribunal with unclean hands. Relying upon Brahm (Alloys) Ltd. & Anr. v. West Bengal Financial Corporation & Ors., the Respondent submits that recovery of^public money cannot be indefinitely delayed at the convenience of^a defaulting borrower. Reliance is also^placed on Tom Thomas v. State Bank of India, 2017⁽²⁾ DRTC 668, lo contend that a^persistent defaulter has no legal or equitable right to obstruct recovery proceedings undertaken by the secured creditor in accordance with law. Accordingly, the respondent^prays for dismissal of the SA^with costs.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel f<ir the respondent reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by the respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Respondent has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002, while issuing and serving the^possession notice. Learned counsel further challenges the classification of the loan account as NPA and, on such^{grounds, prays} fopguashing of the

/AW"o L/

Page 4 of 5

SA No. 28712025

impugned notices issued under Sections 13(2) and¹³⁽⁴⁾ of^the SARFAESI Act.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Company,^{in his written} arguments, reiterated the contents of the^{reply statement, denied the} averments made in the SA and^{placed relianceupon the documents} filed along with the reply. It is submitted that the^{loan accountwas} duly classified as NPA in accordance with the^{applicable RBI} guidelines and that the Respondent Company had strictly complied with the procedure^prescribed under^the SARFAESI^{Act and the Rules,} 2002. Accordingly, Learned Counsel^{prayedfor dismissalof the SA.}

¶33

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

¶34

i) Whether the Applicants made out any^{valid ground to} quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule^property as^{prayed for?}

¶35

ii) To what relief?

¶36

Point No.(i):

¶37

B. Admittedly, applicant availed SME secured^{loan against} mortgage of schedule Property and^failed to^{make payment as per} repayment schedule. Hence the action of the^{Respondent Companyin} classification of account as NPA and initiating the^SARFESI proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by the applicants.

¶38

I. The Respondent Bank filed material documents^{as proof of} com,pliance of due^procedure of law.^{Pages 15 to 32 of the material} paper annexed with the reply statement are the Photostat^copiesof postal receipts and tracking reports^proving service of demand^notice. ;::r--,"..'.' ffi**

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

SA No. 28712025

¶41

Similarly, Pages 33 to 40 are the Photostat copies of possession notice dated 28.07.2025 being served via registered post, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 30.07.2025. 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, B(1) & B(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶42

In view of above observations, it is concluded that the Applicants failed to establish any valid ground to set aside demand notice under section 13(2) and possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 in respect of the SA Schedule Property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Point No.(ii):

¶44

11, In the result, the Securitisation Application fails and is hereby dismissed

¶45

L2. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶46

(Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2lh doy of August, 2026).

¶47

6L\r '=#ffi* KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Shiv Shankar Mutton Supplier and Another v. Bajaj Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Mutton Supplier and Another v. Bajaj Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Capital Protection Force Private Limited

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Avinash C

Hdfc Bank versus Venkataiah

Upender Maradhapakhu Alias upender Maradapaka versus Shriram Finance Limited

Smt Meenadevi Madem versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Sandeep Traders Rep by Sunil Kumar Agarwal versus reliance commercial finance limited