Dismissed

Mr Venkataswamy Chintakunta v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

DRT2 Jun 2026SA/417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of DRT Hyderabad dismissed the applicant's applications challenging the Respondent bank's sale notice and the Advocate Commissioner's possession warrant. The court held the sale notice was infructuous due to lack of bidders but ordered the bank to reissue a valid auction notice following SARFAESI procedures.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Notice is rendered infructuous; the Respondent Bank is directed to follow SARFAESI Act procedures to issue a fresh sale notice for a new auction.

Mr Venkataswamy Chintakunta versus Hinduja Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.417 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mr. Venkataswamy Chintakunta, s/o Mashanna, aged about 52^years, occ: teacher, male, R/oH.no.42-250/ ll, second floor, Near new bus stand, Wanaparthy town, Wanaparthy Distrlct - 509 103.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorised officer, Situated at 2nd floor, T19 towers, Indira nagar, Karbala Maidan, Ranigunj, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant

¶13

Counsel for Respondent

¶14

Shri D. Raghavulu

¶15

Shri T. Ranadhir Singh

¶16

Orders reserved on 18.05.2026

¶17

Pronounced on 02.06.2026

¶18

Uploaded in website on

¶19

02.06.2026

¶20

eqd ORDER f-"&'3 1. The aoolican Securitisation Application under Section^{17 of the} 0 2 JUN'?r26 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and^Enforcement ',W

¶21

(sA.No.4ul2024)

¶22

of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.10.2024^{issued by the respondent} bank for conducting auction of the^{schedule property on 25'Ll.2024} and notice dated 09.10.2024^issued by^{the Advocatecommissioner} pursuant to warrant in Crl.Mp.21l2024 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst Sessions^{Judge, Wanaparthy.}

¶23

The averments made^{in the application in brief are as follows:}

¶24

The Applicant availed housing^{loan for a sum of Rs.36.00 lakhs from} the respondent bank and^{created mortgagein respect of schedule} property towards the security of the said loan'^{Due to covid-19} pandemic, the applicant defaulted some instalments.^{So, the} respondent bank has classified^{the loan accountas NPA but the same} is not in accordance with the^{RBI guidelines.The respondentbank} without serving neither demand^{notice nor possessionnotice and} without affixing^{possessionnotice and also not publishingthe} possession notice, issued sale notice dated^{L8.L0.2024for conducting} of the auction of the^{schedule propertyon 25.L1.2024'The} respondent bank also initiated^{steps for taking physical possessionof} the schedule^property through^{Advocate commissionerwho was}

¶25

by the Hon'ble Chief^{Judicial Magistrate cum Asst Sessions} ffqsfusQ rthy in Crl.Mp.2Ll2024.^{Hence the SA.} €S i/ Ay ent bank filed reply statement^{contendingthat} ii: #*' '^ti .l^z "^,un ,^^#t" ',I.n" : availed loan from the respondent^{bank by creating} '-w__ff# 2

¶26

¶27

(sA.No.4u /2024],

¶28

mortgage in respect of schedule property failed to repay the loan amount, so the respondent bank classified the loan account as NPA on 06.03.2024. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued demand notice dated L9.04.2024 to the applicant and the same was received by the applicant and co-borrower. The said notice was also^published in two leading newspapers i.e., "Nava Telangana and Financial Express". Thereafter the respondent bank issued^{possession notice} dated 16.07.2024 under section^{13(a) of the Act and the said notice} was affixed on the schedule^{property and it was publishedin "Nava} Telangana and Financial Express"^{daily newspapers.Thereafterthe} respondent bank approached^{the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistratecum} Asst Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy by^{filing Crl.MP.2U2O24 for} appointment of Advocate^{commissioner.The Ld Chief Judicial} Magistrate Cum Asst. Sessions^{Judge,Wanaparthy was pleased to} appoint Advocate^{commissioner who in turn issued notice to the} applicant for taking^{physicalpossessionof the scheduleproperty'The} respondent bank also^{issued E-auction Sale Notice against the} schedule^{propertyfor conducting auction on 25.11.2024 but however} was not conducted as there are^{no bidders.So, the SA}

¶29

|^:1 rguments of both Counsels. u4z fz ,:!$utf^;!$utf^t$h" {Inl^?ft

¶30

(sA.No.417l2024)

¶31

i) Whether the applicant has established any ground for challenging the E-Audion Sale Notice dated 18.10.2024 issued by the Respondent bank for conducting auction of the schedule^property on 25.11.2024

¶32

ii) whether the applicant has established any^{ground for challenging} the notice dated 09.10.2024 issued by the^Advocate commissioner^pursuant to^{warrant in Crl.MP.21/2024on the file} of Hon'bte Chief Judicial^{Magistrate cum AsstSessionsJudge,} Wanaparthy.

¶33

iii) To What Relief?

¶34

Pointno.sl&II:

¶35

During the course of^{arguments,the Ld counsel for applicant and} respondent bank^{reiteratedtheir respective versions as stated supra.}

¶36

There|snodisputeregardingthefactthatapplicantavailedloan from the respondent^{bank by creating mortgage in respect of schedule} property and thereafter committed^{default in repaying the loan} amount and so,^{the respondentbank classified the loan accountas} NPA.

¶37

on of the applicant^{is that the respondent bank without} notice and^{possessionnotice, issued impugnedsale} .L7.2024 and so^{the said noticeis not valid, Further} applicant is that^{the respondent bank initiated steps}

¶38

(SA.No.417l202a)

¶39

for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon'ble chief rudiciar Magistrate cum Asst Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy in Crl.Mp.2t/2024 and the said steps initiated by the respondent are not in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶40

The contention of the respondent bank is that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory demand notice and^possession notice to the Applicant and so the respondent bank is entitled to proceed with the auction of the schedule propefty and similarly the respondent bank is also entitled to take physical possession of the property through Advocate commissioner.

¶41

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices, has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 19.04.2024 under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicant and co-

¶42

The said notice was received by the applicant as evidenced owledgments. In fact the said notice was also Telangana and Financial Express" newspapers.

¶43

hfl,dt'i,J8si, service of demand notice on the applicant. As the comply the demand notice, the respondent bank

¶44

(sA.No.a17l202a)

¶45

issued Possession notice dated 16.07.2024 to the applicant and coborrower and the said^possession notice was sent through registered post. The said notice was published in "Nava Telangana and Financial Express" daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of^paper publication filed by the respondent bank,

¶46

As per the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the respondent being secured creditor is entitled to approach the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy for appointment of Advocate commissioner for taking^{physical possession} of^the property, Accordingly the respondent bank approached by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Asst Sessions^Judge, Wanaparthy by filing Crl.Mp.2L/2024 for appointment of^Advocate commissioner. The Ld CMM was^pleased to appoint^Advocate commissioner who in turn issued notice dated 09.10.2024^demanding the applicant to vacate within 15 days from the notice.^Admittedly, the applicant received the said notice^{which is filedalong with the} SA. So in the circumstances, I am of^{the opinionthat the said notice} issued by the advocate commissioner^{for takingphysical possession} of schedule^property is^perfectly legal and^{binding on the applicant'}

¶47

So far as ugned sale notice dated 18.L0.2024^{is concerned,in} =a 'i^""- notice, no auction was conducted for want^of |:^{n Pul5ga2PP or} "3 , ,, -']r. .,, bidders. pugned sale notice become infructuous. So nothing 3, SA for determining the validity or otherwise of^the

¶48

(sA.No.417l2024)

¶49

impugned sale notice dated 09.10.2024. Suffice, if the respondent bank is directed to follow scrupulously the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules made thereunder in issuing fresh sale notice to the applicant for conducting the auction of the schedule property. These points are answered accordingly.

¶50

Point no.III)

¶51

In the result, SA.4l7/2024 is dismissed.

¶52

The Interlocutory Appllcations, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶53

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of lune, 2026)

¶55

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

0 2 JIJN zS2$

¶57

A"N*W
'!i";iuffi^,

Mr Venkataswamy Chintakunta v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Venkataswamy Chintakunta v. Hinduja Housing 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

Bank of India versus Mr. Pathan Mahaboob Subhani

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India

J Surender versus Union Bank of India

Panyala Pushpalatha and Another versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

J Mukund versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bellatrix Wagon Traders