Dismissed

Srinath Kusuma v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/30/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged via notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Respondent's possession proceedings alleging procedural violations. The Tribunal examined whether statutory notices were duly served and rules followed. Finding no procedural lapses, the Tribunal held the proceedings valid and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The notice under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is dismissed as the respondent has duly followed the legal procedure for taking possession under Section 14.

Srinath Kusuma versus Shriram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 23RD DAYOF MARCH, 2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.BO./2c24

¶5

Srinath Kusuma, S/o Kedari, R/o H.No. 16-5-255, Under Bridge Road, Warangal.

¶6

. .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shriram Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, Branch office: M.G. Road, Pochamma Maidanam, Warangal-1 .. . Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : SiT.Sridhar Reddg Counsel for Respondent : Si N.Raghuueer

¶10

Reserued on :21.O1.2026 Pronounced on : 23.O3.2O26 Uploaded on :23.03.2O26

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2O02, 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 CrI.M.P.No.134123 and also to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶13

The

¶14

lication, in brief, are that:

¶15

The cilities from the Respondent and recur+rtrfiy,Aslln of a sudden, on 23.01.2024, some ryn"."$ i persoris c iela ryl i y,, ing to be the 14cdve agents of the Respondent along with .,.rl"-ia'.ef-s'7 :+i:t, WrW

¶16

advocate commissioner visited the schedule properties and demanded the Applicant to vacate the schedule properties and served copy of vacate notice dt.22.or.2024 and demand notice dt.2g.04.2023 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, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

¶18

The Respondent Iiled Reply denying all the adverse alegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule propert5r 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.134l23 after duly issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

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

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

wLetter the has establisled ang ualid grounds for initiated bg the Respondent for taking

¶22

lon propertA u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI 2

¶23

n"?,fl,ilffi t026 *

¶24

Point .l\Io.(il:-

¶25

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

¶26

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to tlre Applicant and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 arrd Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶29

To substantiate their contention,. Respondent filed material documents along by them. As per the said documents, it is clear 'a{-fef loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the n.tffia"r,t edd notice dt.28.O4.2O23 u/s 13(2) of the .s. SARAFAPSS 4aF, l$gz the said notice was sent to the Applicant .l

¶30

through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports Iiled by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 10.08.2023 u/s l3(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 liled 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 followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(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,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶31

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 of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No. 134/23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Warangal after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property and the said notice was admittedly served on the Applicant.

¶32

t2. Applicant

¶33

tances, I am of the opinion that the f as there are no merits in the SA. So, erence of this Tribunal with the ent for taking physical possession of

¶34

the schedule^property u/s^{14 of the SARFAESIAct,2O02. Accordingly,this} point is answered in favour of^{the Respondentand against the Applicant'}

¶35

Point No.(11)r

¶36

In the result,^{SA gO} /2024^{is dismissed as there are no merits'}

¶37

Consequently,thelnterlocutoryApplications,pendingifany,shallstand disposed of.^{No order as to costs.}

¶38

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶39

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed.^{bg her, corrected,signed and pronounced bg me in the open} courl on this^{the 23'ddaA of March,2O26)}

¶40

sd/(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OTFICER

¶41

j 23ilAffzu26 :
i ra.:,%* -aS
tl':'3h* --e":+;,,
t{rgiztrq;g;7
\tgiiiryJz

¶42

ffi*'

Srinath Kusuma v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinath Kusuma 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham

Kavitha Enterprises versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Our Basket

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sravanthi Powelooms Industry

State Bank of India versus Mr. Arun Kumar Mantoor

Balagouni Balraj Goud versus Shriram Finance Limited