Dismissed

Kancharla Swarupa v. Shriram Finance

DRT6 Apr 2026SA/39/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the lender's possession proceedings. The court found the lender served statutory notices and obtained judicial orders for an advocate commissioner to take possession, holding no meritorious grounds for interference under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there are no merits to interfere with the valid proceedings initiated by the respondent for taking physical possession.

Kancharla Swarupa versus Shriram Finance — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL * I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.B9,/2C25

¶5

Smt. Kancharla Swarupa, W/o late Kancharla Krishna Rao, Aged 39 years, Occ:busine ss, R/ Oh.No. 8-56, Narkatpally village Nalgonda Distrit-508254

¶6

.. . Applicant

¶7

Verszs

¶8

M/s Shriram finance Ltd. Rep. by its Branch manager Branch oflice at:D.No.l-4-249 lI, KJR Complex, KK Road, Suryapet-S08 213.

¶9

. .. Respondent

¶10

C ouns el fo r the Ap pli cant : Si P.Prakash Raju Counsel for Respondent : Si N.Ragtruueer

¶11

Reserued on :11.03.2O26 Pronounced on :06.04.2O26 Uploaded on :06.04.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

l' This application is liled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the sARFAESI Act, 2002, chaLLenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nalgonda in Crl.M.P.No.50 /2a and also to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶14

/{"q* application, in brief, are that: of Rs.6 lakhs under SME Scheme and ;:*:1fffirn:ffiii"# the Respondent by creating mortgage

¶15

against the schedule propert5r. Due to the death of the husband of the Applicant in the year 2022, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and informed the same to the Respondent and requested for time. But without considering the same and 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 through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Nalgonda 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.

¶16

The Respondent filed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that as the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues, the loan account was classified as NpA and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.L2.o9.2o2g and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd.Post. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.06.o1.2024 to the Applicant and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and the same was also affixed on the schedule property. Subsequently, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.cJM, Nalgonda in crl.M.P.No.50/24 and the advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicant demanding to handover the possession of the schedule property and thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heerd^Ld. . Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the i-: ..,.-.l tI,: . PC4SSed the material brought on record. t',.. I I r,:. l -ili

¶18

*ry $hfim"lrbffi thakfttise for consideration are

¶19

o** ii
#//
i4

¶20

i. uheth.er the Applicant has establisted ang ualid. grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for taking

¶21

phgsical possession of the schedule property u/ s 14 of tte SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commi.ssioner?

¶22

ii. To u.that relief?

¶23

Point .t\Io.(i):-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The specilic contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r 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.

¶27

Per contra, contended- that they have duly followed the the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and all the statutory notices to the Applicant of the schedule property u/s 14 of o$sttffnr,tgf

¶28

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifzing the loan account of the Applicant as NpA as per the guidelines of RBI, tJre Respondent issued demand notice dt.12.0g.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2oo2 andthe said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. when the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.o6.ol.2024 u/s 13(a) of the Act, 2oo2 a.,d the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports frled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Terugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(l)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice dt.06.O 1.2024.

¶29

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(4) 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, Nalgonda u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.p.No.50/24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Nalgonda after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner issued r5r,lice t9 the f,pplipant to vacate the schedule propert5r and the said

¶30

E ApF tvn *
hY
4
..,,,

¶31

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2O02. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Polnt No.(ii):-

¶33

In the result, sA 39/2025 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶34

consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg lter, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 6th dag of Apil, 2026)

¶37

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

Kancharla Swarupa v. Shriram Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kancharla Swarupa v. Shriram Finance

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mareedu Ajay

Mr Anwar Basha Shaik and another versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Sandeboina Jayamma and Ors. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Siddi Vinayak Poly Fibers

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Jalaram Jute and Polymers

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Saikumar Palem