Dismissed

Reka Saidulu v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

DRT2 Feb 2026SA/406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenged the proceeding for taking physical possession initiated by a secured creditor through an advocate commissioner. The tribunal examined whether statutory notices were duly served and held that the proceedings were legal and valid following the due process of law.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the proceedings challenging the taking of physical possession was dismissed.

Reka Saidulu versus Shriram Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND^{DAY OF FEBRUARY'2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

SA.No.4O6/2024

¶5

Sri Reka Saidulu, S/o Guruvaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ: private emPloYee, R/o H.No.Plot^No.10, Om Sai Colony, Near Blind School,^Gollaguda, Nalgonda Town^{& District-So8O01}

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Shriram Finance^Ltd., Regd. Office:Sri^{Towers,Plot No. 14A,} South Phase,^{IndustrialEstate,} Guindy, Chennai-60o⁰³² Rep. by its Authorized^Officer ... ResPondent Cour*el for the^APPlicant : Mr Akkapaka S'inivas : Si N. RagLruueer Counsel for ResPondent Reserued on j 06.01.2025 02.02.2026 Uploaded on : 02.02.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application^{is filed by the Applicant u/s.17of the SARFAESIAct,} 20O2, challenging^{the proceedingsinitiatedby the Respondentfor} taking physical^{possessionof the schedule property through Advocate} commissioner^{pursuant to the orders of Ld'CJM,Nalgonda in} Crl.M.P.No.49/2024^consequentto the possession^notice dt.09.12. eclare the same^{as illegal and void.}

¶11

tion, in brief, are that:

¶12

W--"#

¶13

The Applicant was running^{Deepthi Nursing Private school in the} schedule property and^{he availed loan of Rs.30 lakhs fromthe} Respondent in the^{year2O19 by creating mortgage in respect of the} schedule property.^{Due to Covid-19, Applicantsuffered financial loss} and so, could not^{pay some instalments.All of asudden,the} Respondent initiated^{proceedingsu/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct,2002} for taking physical^{possessionof the schedule property and the} advocate commissioner^{appointed by the Ld.CJM,Nalgonda issued} notice dt.07.1O.2O24 to the^{Applicant to vacatethe schedule property} without serving demand^{notice and possessionnotice to the Applicant} and so the said^{proceedingsare null and void. The impugned} possession notice dt.09.12.2023^was not^{publishedin two leading} newspapers and also^{not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the} SA.

¶14

Respondent filed Reply^{denying all the adverse allegationsmade in the} sA and contended that^{the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent} and thereafter committed^{defaultin repayingthe loan dues'So, the} Respondent initiated^{proceedings under the provisionsof SARFAESI} Act, 2OO2 and^{issued demand notice and possessionnotice to the} Applicant and others.^{Thereafter, the Respondentinitiatedproceedings} u/s14oftheSARFAEsIAct,2oo2fortakingphysicalpossessionofthe schedule property^{through advocatecommissionerand there are no} violations. Accordingly,^{Respondent prayedto dismiss the SA'}

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicantand Ld' Counselfor the} Respondent. Perused^{the materialbrought on record'}

¶16

ts that arise for consideration^are

¶17

ffi'B ll r* ,1,^"' 1, &bn"ttu, Applicant tns estabtished^{ang ualid grounds} for proceedings initiated bg tle Respondent for^taking 0 2 ll': ii* ! vt-:, ..,.t"^ ...{ -n,,i

¶18

physicat possession of thE schedule^{propertg throughaduocate} commissioner?

¶19

ii. To what relief?

¶20

Point IVo.(i):-

¶21

During the course^{of arguments, Ld. Counselfor the Applicantand Ld'} counsel for the^{Respondent reiteratedtheir respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶22

There is no dispute regarding^{the fact that the Applicantavailed loan of} from the Respondent^{by creating mortgagein respect of the schedule} property and thereafter committed^{defaultin repaying the loan dues'}

¶23

The specilic contention^{of the Applicantis that the Respondentwithout} serving demand notice^{and possession notice tothe Applicant,} straightaway initiated^{proceeded for taking physical possession of the} schedulepropertythroughadvocatecommissioneru/s14ofthe SARFAESI Act,2OO2^{without following due process of law and so, the said} proceedings initiated by tJle^{Respondent are not legal and valid'}

¶24

g. per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly^followedthe procedure contemplated under^{the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2and} Rules made thereunder^{in issuingall the statutory notices to the Applicant} and also in initiating^{proceedings for takingphysicalpossession of the} schedule^property u/s^{14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002'}

¶25

tion, Respondent filed^{material documents} per the said documents, it is^{clear that after} /albng ,rffi^{with tn6ir Repl5} i.t+""trf;'?*^{[6s p3p .} t of the Applicant as^{NPA, the Respondent} 'i,is3ued Demand^notic t1.o8.2o23 u/s 13(2) of^{the SARAFAESI Act,} boozla,Esp&p& was sent to the Applicant^{throughSpeed Post as} q3-%Y

¶26

evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.09.12.2023 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2002 arld sent the said notice to the Applicant through Speed Post and the same was served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent. The said notice was published in Telugu 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 copy of photograph liled by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent have duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.09.12.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property.

¶27

¶28

{1\ t.' ,*F. ,,t, t2.

¶29

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, trle 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, Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.CJM, Nalgonda u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.p.No.49l24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. Id.CJM, Nalgonda, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 are.perfectly legal and valid.

¶30

all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AqPrimft^is entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I ting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule 4

¶31

property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,20O2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Potnt ltlo.(il)r

¶33

In the result, SA 40612024 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

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, conected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 2"d daA of Februarg,2O26)

¶37

sd/_ (G. GOPr CHANDI PRISIDIITG OFFICER

¶38

a'
ffi
{}
, Ft8 2026
.J
'. . tLi
..i ;.i,
'J'
tiili
ilffis$

¶39

, rriJE/COPY ,
0,Y\k?
DRT-i, HYDEF.A,BAD,

Reka Saidulu v. Shriram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reka Saidulu v. Shriram 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

State Bank of India versus Ms.Parsi Rohini

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited