Dismissed

Debbati Satish v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT4 Aug 2026SA/329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under s. 17 SARFAESI Act challenging the physical possession notice. The Tribunal held that mandatory notices were duly issued and follow forwarded, and rights survived the loan restructuring.

What did the court decide?

Application under s. 17 SARFAESI Act is dismissed; Interlocutory Applications disposed of; No order as to costs.

Debbati Satish versus Shriram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST,2C-26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.329/2025

¶5

Debbati Satish, S/o Rajaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 1- 13-32, Kapuwada, Kagazanagar, Adilabad- 504 296 ... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer H.No.2-8-233, Inside Ahsoka Lodge, Mukarampura, Karimnagar-SO5OO¹ ... Respondent : Si Mir Mukram Ali Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent : Sri N.Raghuueer

¶8

Reserued on : 16.07.2026 Pronounced on :04.08.2026 Uploaded on : 04.08.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application is liled^{by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2002, challenging the^{PhysicalPossessionNoticedt. 12.07.2025 issued} by the Respondent^{againstthe scheduieproperty and also for a} direction-Jo the Respondent^{to hand overthe physicalpossession of the} ..'1,.'_.s

¶11

sehedrile 6impe.{ties -.^{to the Applicant.} ';.'i . ..^.,i

¶12

,..! the application, in^{brief, are that:}

¶13

.". .',, th. Applicant,s.,brother Tirupathi Debbadi^{availed loanof Rs.25 lakhs} ent whereas the Applicant^{herein along with his}

¶14

;n:*ff.aU Srinivas stood as guarantors/co-borrowers^{and the}

¶15

applicant created^{mortgage againstthe schedulepropertiesas security}

¶16

for the repayment of the said loan. The borrower committed default and so, the Respondent issued Arbitration^proceedings vide Arbitration Case No.45/20. During the^pendency of the Arbitration^proceedings, M/s Shriram City Union Finance got amalgamated wit Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and subsequently^{changed as} Shriram Finance Ltd. The Respondent herein initiated^proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand^notice dt.14.O4.2O23 and issued^{possessionnotice withoutfollowing the} procedure. The Respondent also taken^{physicalpossession} of the secured assets on 12.07.2025^{.uls 14} of^{the Act but} mere amalgamation and change of name^{will not give the Respondent, right} to initiate^proceedings under^{the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.Hencethe SA.}

¶17

¶18

The Respondent frled their^{Reply denying all the adverse allegations} made in the SA and contended^{that the Applicant availed secuned loan} after depositing title^{deeds and creating mortgage with the Respondent'} After availing loan, the^{Applicant committed defaultand so, the loan} account was classified^{as NPA. Accordingly,the Respondent initiated} proceedings under the SARFAESI^{Act,2OO2and issued demand notice} and possession notice by^{following the procedure. Accordingly,} Respondent^prayed to dismiss^{the SA.}

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant and Ld.Counselfor the} Respondent. Perused^{the material brought on record.}

¶20

Now the^points that^{arise for considerationare}

¶21

Applicant has established^{ang ualid grounds} for impugned Possession^{Notice dt. 1 2. 07.2 02 5issued}

¶22

bg the against tle schedule ProPerties?

¶23

l-,{ I t I^AriG2r?[ ..ii. To what

¶24

Potnt No,lil:-

¶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 ofthe case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of the schedule properties and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the roan account was classifred as NpA by the Respondent. Subsequently, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 ard also issued possession notice dt. 12.07.2o2s against the secured assets.

¶27

8' The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice without following the procedure and the Respondent herein is not entitled to initiate SARFAESI proceedings in view of mere amalgamation and so, the said notices are null and void.

¶28

9 . Per contra, Respondent contended that admittedly, the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of the schedule properties. After availing the loan, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues as per the terms of the roan agreement and so, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the guidelines of RBL So, the Respondent issued a]l the mandatory notices to the Appricant and others by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2002 asd es made thereunder. It is further contended that upon amalgamation, assets, liabilities, securities and all rights automatically *l veQtlih the ted entity and thus, the Respondent herein is fully and enforce all recovery proceedings initiated by its

¶29

10' To substantiate their contention, Respondent fired material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.14.o4.2o2g and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.18. or.2o24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal acknowiedgements l ed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule properties as evidenced by the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule g(l)(2) of Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice dt. 1g.01.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the Respondent issued physical possession notice dt.72.o7-2o2s. chalrenged the said notice, the Applicant liled the present SA and this Tribunar granted interim conditional stay order and the Applicant duly complied with the said order. Accordingry, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶30

Potnt No.(ii)t

¶31

In the result, sA 329/2s 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.

¶32

of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

t/e/ k. to the P:5, signed and pronounced bg me in the open qff6* ^: ['"'t'{hffi sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) fru*"H-'r$r' PRESIDING OTFICER Da'^I

Debbati Satish v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debbati Satish v. Shriram 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

Y Ramani Reddy versus Indian Bank

K Venkata Swamy versus Hdfc Bank

Paras Sansar Bazar versus Protium Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Sree Fertility and Gyane Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sai Mahalaxmi Industries

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mrs. Bathula Pravalika