The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad II, dismissed an application challenging the recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. It held the applicant lacked locus standi to question procedure compliance regarding the borrower's asset and found the schedule property distinct from the mortgaged land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL- II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THISTHE 17thDAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT: SH.RAMESHWARKOTHE, B'Com, L'LB' (Hons')' M'A' PRESIDINGOFFICER
SecuritizationApplication No' 478 OF 2023
Smt. RePalleSalamma W/o. Pullaiah,Aged 53 Years, Occ: Housewife,R/o. H.No.5/106-A/8, MuddanurVillage,MuddanurMandal, YSR KadapaDistrict, AndhraPradesh
.......ApPlicant
Versus
Rep. bY itsAuthorized officer
S/o. SriLingamaiah Aged about58 Years, Oic: Business,R/o. D'No'5/106-A-8' trlaLuguRoad, MuddanurVillage and Manial,KadaPaDistrict-516380
.... ResPondents
: Mr. V.Sethu MadhavaRao Counselfor the APPlicant Mr. M.Indrasen Counselfor ResPondent ComPanY: 2nd & 3'd ResPondents : Ex-parte
-: Q3-D-EB:-
Page 2 of8
SA No. 47812023
to declare all measures initiated by the respondent company under section 13(4) & 14 of the Act, including the action of taking the physical possession of the SA schedule property through Advocate Commissioner warrant in Crl.M.p.No.471 of 2023 on the fite of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa as null and void; and consequenUy to restore the physical possession of the SA schedule property to the applicant and to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Crore to the applicant for causing hardship by the 1.t Respondent Company.
((/<''"'-"
Page 3 of8
sA No. 47812023
commissionernotice only when copiesthereof were thrown in front of her ScheduleProperty,which, in her submission, amountsto a violation of theprescribed SARFAESIprocedure and the mandatory requirements of service andpublication. Further applicant contends that she filed an I.A.No.35o7 of2023 seekingstay of all furtherproceedings' including takingphyslcal possessionof the property' On 14 11'2023' the Hon'ble Tribunalproceededex parte in the said application(responde.nt being called absent,no representationfiled) and posted the matterfor orders on 15.11.2023.However,the TribunaldismlssedI A'No3507/2023as not maintainable.Thereafter, the Respondent,through the Advocate Commissioner. issueda noticedated 14 77 '2023and proceeded to create a disturbanceat the premiseson 15 11 2023 and againon L6.11,.2O23, assertingthat the warrant would be executed"at any cost". ThePetitioner submitsthat these actions are being taken without ValidreasonsandinblatantdisregardoftheproceduralreqUirements under the SecurityInterest (Enforcement) Rules' 2002 (hereinafter "Rules" for short),and are thus arbltrary, illegal' and liable to be set aside.
Page 4of8
SA No. 47812021
accurately reflect her present economic status or activity. The Applicant has filed the Securitization Application against her husband, the 2nd Respondent, who is the borrower and who availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs, whereas the 3d Respondent stood as guarantor. To secure the said roan transaction, the 2,d Respondent executed a memorandum of deposit of title deed, dury registered in the office of the sub-Registrar of r4uddanur vide Doc. No.630 of 2014 dated 70.04.2074. The attached property is described as Door No.5/106-A/g, measuring 160 Sq. yards, tocated on the roadside, with boundaries: East and West _ property of K.V. Subba Reddy, Notth - Kadapa to Tadipatri R&B Road, and South _ Road. fhe Finance Company asserts that this property belongs to the husband (2,d Respondent) and has been validly attached for the recovery of the outstanding dues. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant herself owns a separate property in Survey No.3g5/2 admeasuring 260 Sq. Yards, purchased on O3_OI_tg77, which is situated behind the attached property (Door No.5/106_4/8), as clearty mentioned in the sale deed filed by her. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition (I.A.No.3 507 /2023) dated 15-11-2023 0n the ground that the attached property is distinct from the petitioner,s property, and that any grievance against the order lay before the higher court. It denies the allegation of creating disturbance on 15_11-2023, asserting that it is wholly incorrect. The Finance Company had obtained a warrant dated 27-70_2023 in Crl.M.p.No.47t/2023, on the basis of which the Advocate Commissioner visited the premises in accordance with law. The Respondent contends that the visit was lawful and that the Petitionert prea in amended para (h) of the statement of Account is devoid of merit and has no force. Both the Applicant and her husband reside under one roof at the address mentioned in the cause tiHe. The Respondent Company contends that the Applicant has no locus standt to approach the Tribunal, and that the present Securitization Application is a collusive move by the husband and wife solely to delay and frustrate .,y'\9,^,;.\ r/ / '..,'v*
PaBe 5 of8
sA No. 478/2023
the recoveryproceedings, therebycausing prejudiceto the lender.The Securitization Applicationbe dismissed with exemplary costs,in the interest ofjustice and topreventabuse of the statutory forum'
Page 5 of8
SA No.47812023
Point No.(i):
0Y**
Page 7 of8
sA No. 47812023
is distinct from the mortgagedproperty createdby 2nd respondent to secure repayment of loanavailedby hlm. To support this plea, the Respondent Bank has annexeda photostat copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed(14ODT),in which the mortgaged propertyis described as: "Kadapa District,Proddatur Regn.District, Muddanur Sub District, MuddanurGram Panchayat,and Village AccounB,Ward No.6, near Harizanawada,SY.No3A5/2,site measuringEast to West 72 ft. (or 9.65 m),North to south72o ft., total extent 760 sq' Yards (or 745.60 sq. mts.), comprisingHouse bearing Door No'5/7O6'A/4, bounded on the East andwest by proPerty of K.V. SubbaReddy,on the North by Kadapa toTadipatri R&BRoadand on the South by Road,"
Ku""t
Page 8 of 8
sA No.47812023.
by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the Schedule Property described in the notices of the 1't respondent company or the advocate commissioner notice. Accordingly, the Securitization Application is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.(ii):
(Typed to my dictotion by the ps, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1/^ doy of Aprit,2o26).
}4 . ,.'ltrrx*_,/(/'5(t^'wrt tht'wrsHwnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash measures initiated by the respondent against the schedule property?
Whether the applicant has locus standi to raise objections regarding compliance of procedure under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the borrower's secured asset?
Whether the schedule property described in the application is distinct from the mortgaged property created by the borrower?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Repalle Salamma W/o. Pullaiah
Shriram Finance Limited
Sri. R. Pullaiah
Shaik Mastan Vali
Rameshwarkothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
