Dismissed

Karumanchi Bhavani v. Can Fin Homes Limited

DRT20 Jan 2026SA/302/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal examined an application challenging a possession notice issued by Can Fin Homes Ltd. under the SARFAESI Act. The court rejected the claim that the failure to affix a copy of the notice on the property or to reply to objections rendered the notice illegal, relying on precedent that affixation is primarily to caution the public.

What did the court decide?

SA No. 302/24 is dismissed as there are no merits in the application.

Karumanchi Bhavani versus Can Fin Homes Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL _ I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOFJANUARY, 2C.26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.302,/2C24

¶4

Mrs.Karumanchi Bhavani, W/o K. Srinivas, aged 42 years, Occ:house wife, R/o HIG-1f , Duplex, Balaji nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 072 Presently R/o 16 Rawlings, ST Oran Park NSW 2570 Australia Rep. byher POA Holder Smt.N.Laxmi, W/o N.S.V.Prasad, R/o HIG-11, Duplex, Hyderabad-S0O 072

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Verszs

¶7

Can Fin Homes Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Situated at Plot No.28, Bramarambika colony, Beeramguda, RC puram, Hyderabad-SO2 032. ... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicants : Si D. RaghanruIu Counselfor Respondent : Sri B.N.Sutamiji

¶9

Reserued on : 19.12.2O25 Pronounced on :2O.O1.2026 Uploaded on : 20.O1.2O26

¶10

ORDER

¶11

'.-:,

¶12

This A on is.filed u/s.17 of the Securit ization and Reconstruction of of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 the action of the Respondent in issuing t&ttCo of the

¶13

The averments made in the Application in brief are as follows:

¶14

The Applicant availed housing loan ofRs.49,95,000/- from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property. Due to loss of herjob, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and all of a sudden, the Applicant received a demand notice dt.03.0s.2o24 from the Respondent company and in response to the said demand notice, the Appricant given reply/objections on ro.oz.2024. but the Respondent failed to give repry to the said objections raised by the Appricant. without complying with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, t:.,,e Respondent issued possession notice dt.10.07.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent filed their Reply denying arl the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed housing loan of Rs.49,95,000 l- from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues. so, the loan account was crassified as NpA by the Respondent by duly following the RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.03.os.2o24 and the said notice was served on the Applicant as admitted by her. The Applicant alleged that she has given reply/objections on 10.07.2o24 to the said demand notice i.e. after rapse of more than two months and the same is time barred. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.ro.or.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant by Regd.post and the same was published in two dail54 h-gwspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus the Regllgi.'pdent has-, duly ; fu, .lrowing the procedure prescribed under the o'gTt") tf tAfi%ff' Apt' 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and there arc no deiia-ticjhsl Ac"cordtnglv prayed to dismiss the SA. 1^' -'j,'^- ,\ :. 2 , ', .,. :!' :.",,/' ' .: ..:. ...^-.;;;!."'

¶16

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶18

i. whetler the Applicant hlaLs established. ang ualid grounds for setting aside tle^possession ivotice dt-10.07.2024 isstted bg *e Respond.ent against the schedule propertg?

¶19

ii. To what relief?

¶20

Point J\Io.(i):-

¶21

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated

¶23

supra.

¶24

7 ' There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant ava,ed housing 10an from the Respondent and later committed default in repayment of loan dues and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.03.05.202a and admittedly, the Applicant received the said notice and also sent reply/objections in response to the said demand notice_

¶25

8' The specific contention of the Applicant is that without giving reply to the objections submitted by the Applicant in response to the demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. r 0.o 7 .2024 without forl0wing and Rules^'inade so, the said possession notice is not legal

¶26

and valiil.; 2'm JAil zmh

¶27

But the Respondent contended that the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant by dury following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶28

In order to prove their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply frled by them. As per the said materiar documents, it is clear that after classising the roan account of the Applicant as NpA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O3.0 5.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd.post and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers and the Applicant also admitted the receipt of the said notice. In response to the said demand notice, the Applicant submitted objections/reply vide her letter dt.ro.o..2024 i.e. after a lapse of more than two months from the date of issuance of demand notice and the same was received by the Bank after issuance of possession notice on lO.O7 .2024 and so, the said objections are not tenable. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.10.07.2024 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 and sent the same to the Appricant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent' The said possession notice was pubrished in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publication filed by the Respondent. Though the Respondent submitted that they have affixed the possession notice on the secured asset, no documents are liled by the Respondent to prove the same. But mere non_ affixture of the possession notice on the secured asset particularly when the borrower is having knowledge of the possession notice issued by the Respon$errt, canhot-be a ground to chalrenge the said notice. when the said notice is also in tryo daily vernacular language, 'Y 0"i9, asset, it cannot be a for the 1S meant only for the general

¶29

public. In this regard , t]'e Hon'ble Hrgh court oJ Andhra pradesh rn M/s sollthro Priaate Lrmtted. vs. The Debts recooery Tfrbunal-r, reported in 2018 SCC Online Hgd, 188, has held in paragraph 17, which is as follows:

¶30

In this regard, it may be noted tLwt rule 8(1) of tte Rules of 2002 requires the authoised officer of the seanred creditor to deliuer a possession notice, prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix-M to tle Rules of 2002, to tLe borrou.ter and bg affixing it on the outer door or at a conspianous place of the propertg. It is not in dispute that the borrower compana receiued. the possession notice dated 04.08.2012. The compraint was that it had not been affixed on the SA scledule propertg. Affixture orf such possession notice on the outer door or at a conspicuous place of the propertg is notice to the pubric at large. This is crear from the contents ofthe stahttory format of the possession notice in Appendix_N to th.e Rules of 2o02. Th.ereunder, fiw borrouter in particular and *e public in general are cautioned not to deal with the propertg. In such a sifuatiory it is not open to tLe borouer companA, hauing alreadg receiued the possessio n notice d.ated. 04.0g.2012, to complain of failure on th. part of ING vgsga Bank Limited in alfixing the notice on tle premises of the secared. assets. If at alt, such a gieuance could be projected. bg a member of the general public '.tho dealt with the secared assets in ignorance of t?w . posses sion notice. Such is not the case presentlg.

¶31

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High court of Andhra pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules-made thereunder -, .1, "it',jssuing^,.1 possession notice dt. IO.OZ .2024 u I s 13(f,) of the Act,2002. ,^{this point} is answered in favour of the,nesfof;aei-,i #6 the Applicant.

¶32

¶33

Potnt l{o.(11)r

¶34

In the result, sA 302/24 is dismissed as there are no merits in the sA. consequently, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35