The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad disposed of Securitisation Application challenging the legality of an Advocate Commissioner's vacate notice. The Tribunal held that the Respondent bank followed the requisite SARFAESI procedure and dismissed the application.
The Securitisation Application (SA.No.64/2025) is dismissed.
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 DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29rH DAY of JUNE, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.64 of 2025
Between:
occ: housewife, R/o #1,-96, Reddypalle, Veenavanka, Karimnagar - 505 502.
Jammikunta, Karimnagar - 505 122.
Applicants
Versus
Shriram Finance Limited,
Jammikunta Branch, Karimnagar, Represented by its authorised officer
Respondent
Cou
Shri K. Buchi Babu
Sri N. Raghuveer
{SA.No.641202s)
| Ordersreservedon | 08.0s.2026 |
|---|---|
| Pronouncedon | 29.06.2026 |
| Uploaded inwebsiteon | 30.06.2026 |
ORDER
The Applicant No.1 availed loan facility to a tune of Rs.35.00 lakhs from respondent bank and executed relevant documents and applicants no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors. The applicant no.1 mortgaged the schedule mentioned property against the loan facility and was regular in paying the instalments. Due to financial crunch and ill health of applicant no.1, the applicant could notpay some of the EMI's. while the matter stood thus, the respondent bank declared / a;ttidti as NPA as per RBI guidellnes. The respondent ir* under SARFAESI Act by issuing demand t,f.JUJl',JoqE*.I Possession notice. But the same was not and it was not affixed on the schedule
(SA.No.6al202s)
property. The Advocate commissioner issued notice dated 05.02.2025 to the applicants for vacating the schedule property basing on the orders in Crl.Mp.LTO/2024 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar. The respondent bank has not followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act in issuing the notices. Hence the SA.
So, th dismissed. 4. Counsels. 2g JIJN 7ll2E *' 5. pornt ror constdero on is
(5A.No.6412025)
ii) To What Relie?
Point no.i)
There is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant No.1 availed loan facility and applicants no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors and created mortgage of schedule property and thereafter committed default and the account was classified as NPA, so the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 30.05.2023.
(SA.No.541202s)
applicants and impugned Possession notice dated 19.08.2023 and also the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 05.02.2025 are perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.
fqvE the possession notice, the respondent bank being titled to invoke the provlsions of Section 14 of !, 2 I ,lutl 262g rq the SARFAFSI ae by approaching the concerned Chief Judicial u?"S,-;#ftitrr'*an$s appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking ,lliiitI;:,:'/
(SA.No.641202s)
physical possession of the schedule property. Accordingly the Applicants filed Crl.MP.17Ol2024 on the file of Hon'ble Chief ludicial Magistrate, Karimnagar. The Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the record, was pleased to appoint Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The said Advocate Commissioner issued impugned vacate notice dated 05.02.2025 to the Applicants directing them to vacate the schedule premises. So the said notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants. So, I see no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings initiated by the Respondent bank for takingphysicalpossession of the scheduleproperty through Advocate commissioner after issuing Possession notice. So there are no merits in the SA and hence SA is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.
Point no.ii)
Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. as to costs.
copy of this order to the parties concerned.
by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the
eM'*#
sdl,fr:Eff (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
,,$f1ffEffiil,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have established any ground for challenging the Advocate Commissioner vacate notice dated 05.02.2025?
What relief is due in respect of the Securitisation Application?
Whether the Respondent bank followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act?
M/s. Sri Krishna Filling Station
Karra Sampath Reddy
Karra Kanthamma
Pakida Sambaiah
Shriram Finance Limited
Gummidi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
