Dismissed

Eppalapally Ravinder Reddy v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This adjudication of a Securitisation Application challenged a possession notice issued by a secured creditor. The tribunal examined whether proper notice to legal heirs and publication in newspapers was effected. It found the creditor complied with statutory rules, dismissed the challenge, and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Eppalapally Ravinder Reddy versus Can Fin Homes Ltd. — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II ATHYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 23RD DAYOF MARCH,2026}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE'B com' L LB (Hons)' M A'} PRESIDiNG^OFFICER

¶3

Securitization^{ApplicationNo '457 OF 2024}

¶4

Sri EpPalaPallY^{RavinderReddy} S/o E. Anii^Reddy noed about^{55 years, Occ:Agriculture} n/o H.No.2-45,^{Kollapadkal Village} Maheshwaram^Mandal Ranga Reddy^District

¶5

.......ApPlicant.

¶6

versus

¶7

l4/s Can^{Fin Homes Limited} Reo bv its Authorized^Officer rlavino rts offlce^{at 3-11-114,Plot No 2} 1'1 Fto;r, sri^{Nilayam,RTccolony,L B Nagar} Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁷⁴

¶8

....ResPondent.

¶9

Counsel^{for the APP|icant}

¶10

Counsel^{for Res7ondent}

¶11

Mr.R. Rajendra^Prasad

¶12

Mr.B. Srinivasa^Rao

¶13

-:g-B-DEB:-

¶14

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of^{SecurityInterestAct,2OO2(hereinafter referred to as} "the Act") to^{set aside the possession notice dated08'10'2024issued} by the respondent^{under Sec.13(4) of the Act'}

¶15

The case of the^{applicant,briefly, is that the applicantis the co-} applicant and the^{principal borrower beinghis son who expiredon} 14.10.2023. The^{property offered as security waspurchasedby the} applicant out of the^{funds arrangedby hls late son' Applicant has no} source to clear the debt.^{The respondent is boundto inform the other} legal heirs about the^{proceedings. Late Virle-eth Reqdy must havepaid} ffiat\

¶16

2ot4

¶17

SA No.4S7l2OZ4

¶18

insurance premium to cover the loan. The account was never classified as NpA, the demand notice stated to be issued on 01.08.2024 was not served. Respondent failed to follow Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 (..Rules,, for short) in serving, affixing and pubrishing the possession notice. Hence this SA.

¶19

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. It is averred that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed for purchase of secured asset itself which is in the name of applicant. He mortgaged the same by depositing the original sale deed vide MoDT 3837 /2023 dated 27.04.2023. Account was classified Demand notice was issued on 01.09.2024 to the heirs of late Vineeth Reddy also. Applicant herein received the notice and the same was published in'Nava Telangana, and,Financial Express,. The possession notice was issued on 0g.10.2024 which was acknowledged by heirs of late Vineeth Reddy, the notice was published in .Nava Telangana, and 'Financial Express'Telugu and English newspapers on 10.10.2024 and got amxed on secured asset. Respondent stricfly followed the due procedure and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent filed written arguments. perused the same along with material documents brought on record by the parties. 5. Vide written arguments, both the learned counsel reiterated their respective version as in the application and ,gply statement. ffi.6

¶21

3of4

¶22

sA No.457l2024

¶23

Now, the^{points for considerationare as follows : -}

¶24

i) Whether the^{appticant made out any validground, to} ' quish the possession notice dated 08 10'2024 issued by iii responaent^{underSec13(4)of the Act' 2002 against} the SA schedule ProPenY?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

It ls not in^{dispute the mortgaged property is in the nameof} applicant, that^{he stoodas co-applicant and availed loan facilityfrom} the respondent,^{along with princlpal borrower his son who is no more} now. The^{respondentfiled copies of registered sale deed' MODT} executed by the^{applicant, along with proof of serviceof demand} notice and^{possessionnotice.A perusal of the demand noticeand} possession notice would^{revealthat they have been issued to all legal} heirs of late^{EppalapalliVineethReddyincludingthe applicant herein} who acknowledged^{receipt ofdemandnotice as per postal} acknowledgement.^{Since not delivered at other addresses'the} demand notice^{was also published in English and Telugunewspapers'} The respondent^{also flled proofof service of the possessionnotice on} the heirs of the^{late E. Vineeth Reddy, publicationin Englishand} Telugu^{(vernacularlanguage) newspapers within stipulatedtime and} afflxtureonsecuredasset.Inviewofsufficientproof,thecontention of applicant that^{the notices werenot issuedon heirs of deceased} principal borrower cannot be^{acceptedSimilarly contentionon non-} compliance of^{Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act and Rules 8(1) and} 8(2) of Rules,^{2002 does not deserve acceptance'}

¶28

In view of the above^{observations,it is concluded that} the the applicant^failed to make out anv^valid er.'U$#dd"

¶29

4of4

¶30

SA No.4s22024

¶31

possession notice dated O8.tO.ZO24 in respect of SA schedule property and accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the ps, co,ected, signed dnd pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2j" doy of Morch,2026).

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Eppalapally Ravinder Reddy v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Eppalapally Ravinder Reddy v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Venkata Ramana Moorthy versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction

Bank of India versus M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Keshapaga Anjaneyulu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank