Dismissed

A.Thirupathi v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

DRT8 Apr 2026SA/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging an auction notice, holding the matter infructuous as the scheduled auction failed due to lack of bidders, dispensing with a detailed validity inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as the auction was not materialized. Direction to issue fresh sale notice if applicant persists is deemed sufficient.

A.Thirupathi versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.472/2024

¶5

A. Thirupathi, S/o late A. Ramaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ:tailor R/o H.No.27-11-35/ 1, Hsanparthy, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hinduja Housing Finance Rep. by its Authorized Officer Branch oflice: Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd., 8-4-238 I 6, 1"t floor, Hanuman Nagar, Krimnagar-S05 001 .

¶9

Krimnagar-S05 001 . .. . Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : SiT. SidharReddg Counsel for Respondents Si T.Ranadhir Singh Reserued on 11.03.2026 Pronounced on 08.04.2026 Uploaded to the utebsite on 08.04.2026

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Appiication is filed u/ s. 1 7 of the Securit rzation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002(SARFAESI

¶12

Act,2OO2 challenging the Sale Notice dt.09.tl.2}24 issued by the Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule property on 12.12.2024 and to declare the same as nul1 and void.

¶13

The averm e Applicant in brief are as follows: . 10,5O,0O0/ - from the Respondent in the year #ana Top up loan of Rs. 1,28,0OO/- Due ro ,n, fflFf"zdf.",t t make some payments. on 02.72.2024, #, W,""*ry

¶14

some persons claiming to be the recovery agents of the Respondent along with some intending purchasers came to the schedule property and informed the Applicant that the Respondent is going to conduct auction in respect of the schedule property on 12.12.2024 and at the request of the Applicant, they gave a copy of the Sale Notice dt.Og. 1 1.2024 issued by the Respondent. Without issuing demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale notice, the Respondent straightaway, issued e Auction Sale Notice dt.09.11.2024 fixing the date of auction on 12.12.2024 and the said sale notice is neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers. The Respondent failed to follow Rule 8(1)(2X5X6)(7)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002. The Respondent has undervalued the schedule property and the Respondent has not obtained valuation from the approved valuer and the reserve price fixed is very low. Hence the SA.

¶15

Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant along with his wife availed loan facilities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property in security to the said loan facilities. In view of the default committed by the Applicant in repaying the loan dues, the loan account was declared as NPA on 28.02.2020 and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued demand notice dt.O5.O6.2O24 and the said notice was served on the Applicant and co-applicant and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.14.O9 .2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and coapplicant through Regd.Post. The said possession notice was published in Nava Telangana and Indian Express daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Responde 4 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for appointmenr of ad the Ld.CJM, Warangal appointed advocate CO possession of the schedule property wl 'ivnendrp.rffr.ffin.t Respondent issued the e Auction Sale 2 l.kffi$e

¶16

Notice dt.09.1 7.2024 and challenging the same, the Applicant hled the present SA, however the proposed auction in respect of the schedule property was not materialized for want of bidders. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

lt. u.thether the Applicant has established any ualid grounds for challenging the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.09.1 1.2024 issued bg tle Respondent against the schedule propertg?

¶20

iii. To what relief ?

¶21

Point lVo.(if :-

¶22

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

¶23

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant along with his wife availed loan faciiities from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property ] and thereafter, they committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the Respondent issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.09. 1 1.2024 for conducting auction of the schedule property and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶24

t is that the Respondent issued the Sale Notice dt.2024 for conducting auction of the 0I APB 2[26

¶25

schedule property without issuing any statutory notices and without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶26

But the Respondent contended that the Respondent has issued all the statutory notices to the Applicant and his u,'ife who is co-applicant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶27

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.os.o6.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2 and sent the same to the Applicant and co-applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent and the said notice was pubrished in two da y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication Iiled by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. when there is no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued Possession Notice dt.14.o9.2024 in respect of the schedule property and sent the said notice to the Applicant and co-applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postat track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu da y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. However, the Respondent did not fire any materiar documents to prove that the said possession notice is affixed on the schedule property. But mere non-affixture of the possession notice on the schedule property particularly when the Applicant is having knowledge of the possession notice issgg!&ffhe$epondent, cannot be a ground to challenge the said noticerlffwlt)tf,! Effi]fut received the possession notice and the said ."rrf€^.*;&. two daily newspapers including one in ular_langudge, even-if [re said notice is not affixed on the secured it."l{,8t88"1ffir.,ofJi the borrower as the affixture is meant only 4 :sd,#

¶28

for the general public. In this regard, the Hon'ble Hlgh Court o! Andhra Prcdesh in M/s Solithro Prlvate Limited Vs. The Debts recovery Tribunal-l, reported ln 2O18 SCC Online Hgd. 188, has held in paragraph 17, which is as follows:

¶29

In this regard, it may be noted that Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2OO2 reE Lires the autLtoised officer of the seanred creditor to deliuer a possession notice, prepored as nearly as possible in Appendix-N to the Rules of 2OO2, to the borrouer and bg affxing it on the outer door or at a conspianous place of the propertg. It is not in dispute that the borrower companA receiued the possession notice dated O4.O8.20i2. The complaint was that it had not been affxed on the SA schedule propertg. Alfixture orfsuch posses sion notice on the outer door or at a conspicuous place of the propertA is notice to the pubtic at large. This is clear from the contents of the statutory fonnat of the possession notice in Appendix-IV to the Rules of 2002. Thereunder, the borrou.ter in particular and the public in general are cautioned not to deal with the propertA. In such a situotion, it is not open to the botrouer ampang, hauing alreadg receiued thepossession notice dated O4.O8.2012, to complain offoilure on the part of ING Vysga Bank Limited in affixing the notice on the premises of the secured ossets. If at all, such a gieuonce auld be projected bg a member of the general public rtho dealt uith the secured a.ssers in ignorance of lhe possession notice. Such is not the case presently.

¶30

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt. 14.O9.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent also proceeded u/s 14 of the SARF r taking physical possession of the schedule pro ut s are not challenged by the Applicant in th t 00tPR2m

¶31

';''l-L',*d

¶32

Thereafter, the Respondent issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.09.1 1.2024 for conducting auction of the schedule property. However, in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.09. 11 .2024, auction as scheduled by the Respondent was not materialized for want of bidders. As the auction in respect of the schedule property in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.09.1 1.2024 was not materialized, the relief claimed by the Applicant in the SA becomes infructuous and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned sale notice. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property by strictiy following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2O02 and Rules made thereunder.

¶33

Polnt No.(ti)t

¶34

In the result, SA 472 124 is dismissed as there are no merits. 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, transcibed bg he\ corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of Apd, 2026).

¶37

sd/-
(G. GOPr CHAND)
PRF,SIDING OFFICER
{"ru
t; os iim
'r i..,1
^ J
"'*i,lnffiP

A.Thirupathi v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thirupathi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujwal Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Salasar Ispat Udyog

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S. Vedamsa Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.

Indira Poultry Farm versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Pushpa Projects