Allowed

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT4 May 2026SA/312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application challenging the initiation of physical possession measures by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The bank was given ex-parte notice and failed to demonstrate adherence to the due process steps required by the Act. The Tribunal set aside the relevant notices initiated against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Securitisation Application by setting aside the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 24.07.2025 and the Possession Notice dated 21.11.2024.

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

;

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

DATED THIS THE^{4IH DAY OF MAY, 2026}

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶5

SA.No.312 oJ 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Banothu layasinga^Raju, s/o B. Biksham, aged⁵³ Years, occ: Employee,^male, R/o h. No. 1-4^-249 / t12l^{tl Bl t3,} Balaji nagr, SuryaPet, Suryapet district - 508^213.

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

LIC Housing Finance^Limited, Represented by its authorised^officer Rlo #2Ol,2nd floor, Krishe^SaPhire Building, Near Image^HosPital, Hitech city main road, Madhapur, Hyderabad -^{500 081.}

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Cou n sel for the Parties:

¶13

Cou n sel for Applicant

¶14

Shri T. Sridhar Reddy

Respondent

Exparte

ORDER

nt filed Securitisation Application under^{Section 17 of the} and Reconstruction of Financial^{Assets and} f,f * E nfo-rcem ent Security Interest Act,2OO2 challenging^the 0 4 ttAY^,rl2fi t challenging ps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical S+ e schedule^property through Advocate Commissioner

¶19

(SA. No.31212025)

¶20

notice dated 24.07.2025 in^{Crl.MP.No.9/2025 on the file of Hon'be} CJM, Suryapet district^{pursuanttoPossessionNotice dated} 21.11.2024 under SARFAESI Act.

¶21

The case in brief is that^{applicantherein availed housing loan of} facility for a sum of^{Rs.22.00lakhs and agreed to repay in 132} monthly instalments of Rs.29,L871-.^{Itis submittedthat the} respondent bank failed to^{follow the due process of law and issued} the^possession notice regarding^{schedule property of application} which is illegal and arbitrary and^{in violation of SARFAESI Act and} rules made thereunder.^{The respondent bankfailed to issue/ serve} the^possession notice and^{respondent bank also failed to affix the} possession notlce at the conspicuous^place of the^{property and also} failed to^publish in two^{leadingnewspapersand thereby not followed} the^{procedure prescribed} under^{Rule B(1) and (2). Hence prayed to} set aside all the measures initiated^{by respondent bank under} SARFAESI Act,2002. Hence the SA.

¶22

ed to Respondent. Respondent called absent and^set s..t iP^d\ei f1b ts of Applicant Counsel. j- o hl"fi.H rfiftu.s consideration is

¶23

(SA. No.312l202s)

¶24

i) Whether the applicant^{has establishedany valid grounds for} setting aside the Advocate^{Commissionernoticedated} 24.07.2025 in Crt.MP.No.9/2025^{on the file of Hon'beCJM,} Suryapet district^pursuant to^{Possession Noticedated} 21.11.2024 issued by the^{Respondentbank against the schedule} property?

¶25

ii) To What Relief?

¶26

Point no.i)

¶27

As stated supra, the^{RespondentBank remained ex-parte.In the} absence of any^proof with^{respectto the following of due procedure} as contemplated under^{the SARFAESIAct, 2002 and the Rules made} thereunder while enforcing^{the security interest over the application} schedule propefty by the^{Respondent Bank, the present} Securitisation Application has to be allowed^{by settingaside the} Advocate Commissioner notice dated^{24.O7.2025 in} Crl.MP.No.9/2025 on the file of^{Hon'beCJM,Suryapetdistrict} pursuant to Possession Notice dated 21.11.2024 issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 against the} application schedule^property.

¶28

the present Securitisation Application is allowed by
p1&mu
* u _ 4 s eLLrr etting l,lAY rg ,t120 ^aside*ldsru e Advocate Commissioner notice dated 24.07.2025
% in crl.MP.N 025 on the file of Hon'be CJM, Suryapet district
w;#

¶29

(SA. No.3121202s)

¶30

pursuant to Possession Notice dated 21.LL.2024^{issuedu/s.13(4) of} the SARFAESI Act, 2002,^{by the Respondent Bank against the} application schedule ProPertY.

¶31

B. In the result, SA.No.31212025^{is allowed.No costs.}

¶32

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.}

¶33

(Dictated to the PS, transcribed by her, corrected,^{signed andpronouncedby me in the open court} on this the 4th day of^May,2026)

¶34

sdl - (G. GOPTCHAND)

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

7-L*i
ffi
j o4ilAy2rt26 *
W,,,,tt'W

¶37

-
ff\ry*
Aerr. 6&X',
DRT-I. ttyfr:'' " T,,...1.

¶38

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju v. LIC Housing 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bejugam Veerabadhram versus Indian Overseas Bank

Madala Venkata Srinivasa Rao versus Union Bank of India

Mr Dharavath Ramachandru versus Canfin Homes Limited

Gollurri Gopal versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S Sindhu Textiles