Dismissed

P Kishore Kumar v. Ikf Home Finance Limited

DRT9 Jul 2026SA/312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the respondent's enforcement action. The court held that mandatory notices were validly served via registered post and published in newspapers, curing the lack of physical affixation. Consequently, possession proceedings under Section 14 were ruled lawful.

What did the court decide?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Section 17 application and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

P Kishore Kumar versus Ikf Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THISTHE 9TH DAY oF JULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.312/2024

¶5

P.Kishore Kumar, S/o Kumara Swamy, Aged 39 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.6-5 -7, Mac}rili Bazar, Hanamkonda, Warangal

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

IKF Home Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Ofiicer Corporate Office: Plot No.30/A Sy.No.83/ 1, Home Twiza, 11fr floor, diamond Hills, Lumbini Avenue, APIIC Hyderabad Knowledge City, Raidurg, Hyderabad-SO0 08 1 . .. Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Sri T.Sidtnr Reddg Counsel for Respondent : M/s Siddharth & Co

¶9

Reserued on :02.07.2026 Pronounced on :09.07.2026 Uploaded on :09.07.2026

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This application is fi1ed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking ion of the schedule property through Advocate co the orders of Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda and also 5.O7.2025 issued by the Respondent for "'ff$"xfif}ff property and to declare the same as and vord-

¶12

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

¶13

The Respondent sanctioned credit facilities to^{Smt.VijayaLaxmi} Pasupunati who died on 23.O5.2023 and^{duringher life time, the loan} dues were regularly^paid. While the^{matter stood thus, on 1O.O8.2O24'} some persons claiming to be the recovery agents^{of Respondent along} with advocate commissioner came to the^{schedule propertyand} demanded the Applicant to vacate^{the same and they servedvacate} notice as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.51 124 on^{the file of Ld.CJM,} Hanamkonda and possession notice dt.O4 .O3.2O24^{issued by the} Respondent. Without serving demand notice^{and possessionnoticeto} the Applicant, the Respondent straightway^proceeded u/s^{14 of the} SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking^{physicalpossession of 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 as contemplated u/r} S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.^{Subsequently,} during the pendency of the SA, the Respondent^{proceeded further and} issued the impugned Intended Sale Notice dt.05.07.O25^{in respect of} the schedule property without following the^{procedure.Hencethe SA.}

¶14

¶15

The Respondent Bank liled their Reply and Additional Reply^denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended^{that originally} Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi as borrower Sri P.Kiran and^{Sri P.KishoreKumar} as Co-borrowers availed loan to a tune of^{Rs. 18,60,0O0/- and top up} loan of Rs.5,80,000/ - from the Respondent in the^{year2022 and Smt.} P.Vijaya Lakshmi created mortgage against the schedule^{property in} security to the repayment of loan facilities.^{Thereafter,the borrower} !^{in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account} and so, the Respondent issued demand notice u/s of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 to the legal^heirs 9f^{Smt. P.Vla} other borrowers and the said notice^was newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent

¶16

¶17

issued possession notice dt.O4.O3.2O24 and the same was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda and the said advocate commissioner issued vacate notice. Challenging the said proceedings, the Applicant filed the present SA. However, the Applicant failed to comply with the interim order granted by this Tribunal and so, the Respondent had taken physical possession of the secured asset through advocate commissioner and also proceeded further and issued Pre-Sale Notice dt.05.07.2025 fixing the date of auction on 1 1 .O8.2025. The same notice was duly served on the Applicant and the said notice was published in Mana Telangana and Financial Express daily newspapers. Thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

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

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

i. uthether the Applicant has established any ualid grounds for challenging tLrc proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the schedule property u/ s 14 of the SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶21

ualid grounds for by the Respondent

¶22

of the schedule property?

¶23

iii. tbB,ntilrftM$z ! ,]

¶24

Points lvo.(i)&(ii) :-

¶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

7 . The undisputed facts of the case are that the one Smt. P.Vijaya Laxmi^as borrower and one Kiran and the Applicant herein as co-borrowers availed credit facilities from the Respondent and^{Smt. P.Vijayalaxmi} created mortgage against the schedule^property and thereafter,^committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account^{was classifaied} as NPA by the Respondent. Subsequently, Smt. P.Vijaya Laxmi expired^on 12.05.2023 and the Respondent initiated^proceedings u/s 14 of^the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking^{physicalpossession} of the^schedule property and also for conducting auction of the schedule property by issuing sale notice dt.os.o7 .2025.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice and without following^Rule 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 2002, straightaway, initiated^proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 20o2 and during the^pendency of the SA, the Respondent proceeded further and issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.Os.O7.2025 and so, the said^proceedings are nuli^{and void.}

¶28

¶29

contended that admittedly, Smt. P.Vijayalaxmi as

¶30

and the Applicant herein as co-borrowers availed pondent against the mortgage of the schedule

¶31

the loan, the borrower committed default in

¶32

tilp.. the terms of the loan agreement and so, the ed as NPA as per the guidelines of RBI.

¶33

Subsequently, the borrower expired on 12.O5.2O23 and the Respondent issued all the mandatory notices to the legal heirs of the deceased borrower including the Applicant and others by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2O02 and Rules made thereunder and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent also issued sale notice dt.05.07.2o25 by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder.

¶34

To substantiate their contention, Respondent fi1ed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. Smt.P.Vijayalaxmi who is the main borrower expired on 12.O5.2023 and in view of the default committed by the borrower, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued notices to the legal heirs of the borrower. The Applicant herein is one of the co-borrower and also one of the legal heirs of the main borrower. As per the material documents it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 15.12.2023 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the^postal track reports hled by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued^possession notice dt.04.03.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the^postal track reports^{filed by} the Respondent. The said^possession notice^{was published} in^{two daily} newspapers as evidenced by the copies of^{paper publication iiled by the} Respondent. Even if the said notice is not aflixed on^{the secured asset, it} for the borrower as the affixture is meant only for the this regard, the Hon'ble High Court oJ Andhra Private Llmited Vs. The Debts Tecoaery .ix tn 2018 SCC Online Hgd 788, h.as held in -a paragraph'T'tt'ltil17:-;hic$i as follows:

¶35

In this regard, it mag be noted that^{Rule 8(1) of the Rulesof} 2O02 requires the authoised offi-cer of the^{seanredcreditorto} deliuer a possession notice,^prepared as nearly^{as possiblein} Appendk-N to the Rules of 2002, to the borrortter^{and bg affixing} it on the outer door or at a conspianous^ploce of^{tlrc propertg.It i-s} not in dispute that the borroruer companA receiued^{tlrc possession} notice dated 04.08.2012. The complaint was that it had not been alfixed on the SA schedule property. Affixture of such^possession notice on the outer door or at a conspicuous place of tLrc^propertg is notice to the public at large. This is clear from the contents of the stohttory format of the possession notice in Append*-IV to tle Rtles of 20O2. Tlereunder, tle borotuer in partianlar and tLe public in general are cautioned not to deal with the property. In such a situation, it is not open to the botrower compana, hauing alreadg receiued fhe possession notice dated O4.08.2012, to complain of failure on the part of ING Vgsga Bank Limited in affuing tlre notice on the premises of the secured assets. If at all, such a grieuance could be projected bg a member of the general public who dealt uith the secured assets in ignorance of the possession notice. Such is not the case presentlg.

¶36

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, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt.04.O3.2024 u/s 13(a) of the Act. After i ion notice, the Respondent is entitled to proceed u/s 14 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the advocate commissioner. Accordingly, the 4 ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2 pursuant to the nda and the advocate commissioner took possession gS t edule property by following due process of - tii,.Flg$i,i-u9'-;i 6

¶37

law and also handed over the possession of the secured asset to the Respondent. So, the said proceedings are perfectly legat and valid. Thereafter, the Respondent issued^pre-sale Notice dt.05.OZ.2O2S for conducting auction ofthe schedule property, however the proposed auction was not materialized in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal. So, the relief claimed by the Applicant in respect of the impugned Sale Notice dt.05.07.2025 becomes infructuous. Accordingly, these points are answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶38

Potnt No.(iii)r

¶39

t2. In the result, SA 312124 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9t daA of July, 2026)

¶42

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

09JUtm :I
rrl
-

¶44

ffifr:ry!..1. nd*ilf f
j+1, H!4)FF.134D'

P Kishore Kumar v. Ikf Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Kishore Kumar v. Ikf Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vijaya Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkatamahalaxmi Powerloom Industry

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Swarooparani Parakala

State Bank of India versus M/S. Royal Industries

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy