Allowed

Mr Cheruku Ashok Kumar v. Sundaram Home Finance Limited

DRT21 Jul 2026SA/290/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's plea that the respondent failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, setting aside the possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 28.02.2026 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Mr Cheruku Ashok Kumar versus Sundaram Home Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No. 290 OF 2026

¶5

Mr. Cheruku Ashok Kumar, S/o cheruku Venkatesham, Aged about 51^years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, Eternal Homes, Haripuri Colony, Saroor Nagar Village, Ranga Reddy District

¶6

..... ....Applica nt

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sundara m Home Finance Limited, Rep. by its authorized oFficer, Situated at Sundara m Towers, 46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 014

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Raghavulu Devalla Counsel for Respondent : Ex-parte

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.L7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 C'Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent company under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, including the proposed action of taklng physical possession of the SA schedule property pursuant to the Vacate Notice dated 04.05.2026 issued in execution of the warrant passed in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2026 on the file of the learned Chief 14etropolitan lvlagistrate, L.B. Nagar, in

/fu92_^s\ U/''r""'

Page 2 of4

SA No. 290/2026

furtherance of the possession Notice dated 28,02,2026 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.

¶17

The averments in the application, briefly stated, are that respondent bank sanctioned a housing loan of Rs. 1 Crore ln the year 2024 against the mortgage of the SA Schedule property. The applicant contends that the loan account was initially serviced regularly; however, due to severe financial losses suffered in buslness following the COVID-19 pandemic, defaults occurred in repayment. The applicant alleges that the respondent bank illegally classified the loan account as a NpA in violation of the RBI guidelines and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act without complying with the mandatory statutory requirements. It is specifically contended that the possession notice under Section 13(4) were not duly served or affixed on the secured asset in accordance with Rules g(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short) and that the possession notice was not published in two newspapers, including one vernacular newspaper having sufficient circulation in the locality. The applicant further alleges that the affidavit filed before the tearned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act did not satisfy the statutory requirements, rendering the order and warrant issued in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2026 illegal. It is further contended that substantiat payments aggregating to more than Rs. 15 Lakhs were made even after issuance of the possession notice dated 2g.02.2026, but the respondent failed to account for the same while proceeding with the physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant also submits that, despite expressing willingness to regularise the loan account, the respondent insisted upon payment of the entire outstanding amount and threatened to dispossess the applicant from the residential property. It is further averred that O.S. No.g01 of 2025 is pending before the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judqe,. Ranga

:S'q:**

PaBe 3 of4

SA No. 290/2026

Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Hence, applicant prays for interdicting the measures initiated by the respondent company against the SA Schedule Property.

¶22

Summons served on respondent and was set exparte on 09.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the content of its application and submits that respondent company wrongfully classified the account as NPA. Learned counsel alleges respondent company having failed to serve the^possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act and compliance of the Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, hence the measures initiated by the respondent company against the SA Schedule Property is to be interdicted.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. The principal contention of the applicant 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. It ls well settled that the secured creditor is bound to strictly adhere to the^procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules, and any deviation from the mandatory provisions would vitiate the measures initiated thereunder. In the^present case, despite due service of summons, the respondent company has chosen to remain absent and has been set ex parte. Consequently, there is no material^placed on record to controvert or disprove the specific allegations of ng&complia0ce with

///'VL.or\

Page 4 of 4

sA No.290/2026

the statutory provisions. The averments made by the applicant, 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 applicant. Accordingly, the Securitisation Application deserves to be allowed.

¶30

In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the possession notice dated 28.02.2026 under section 13(4) of the Act.

¶31

Consequenuy, InterlocutoryApplications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

No order as to costs.

¶33

10' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶34

(.rl::1,:",!l !:r:?r,":by.the^{steno., corrected, signedond pronounced by me in theopen court on this} the 21't doy ofJuty,2026).

¶35

Qf'r"rd HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Cheruku Ashok Kumar v. Sundaram Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Cheruku Ashok Kumar v. Sundaram 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

Ms St Daniel Christian Minority Educational Society versus Canara Bank

D Anjaiah versus Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd.

J Balaji Alias Jonnalagadda Balaji versus Shriram Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited. versus M/s. Phoenix Plastowares Pvt. Ltd.

B Sravan Kumar versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and Others

Gutha Prabhakar Reddy versus Ms Phoenix Arc Private Ltd. and Others