This application under the SARFAESI Act challenged a possession notice issued by the bank. The Tribunal held that a valid demand notice was served. The possession notice was deemed a notice of intimation not requiring publication. The application was dismissed.
Application dismissed; direction to follow prescribed procedure for issuing possession notice in the future.
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 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2C.26
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.78,/2c24
Smt. Shaganti Sudharani, W/o-Mr.Late Shaganti Srinivas Goud, O_cc:house wife, R/o H.No. 1-6-212 /64/23, Musheerabad, MCH Colony, parsigutta West, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-SoO O2O:
... Applicant
Tersus
HDFC Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Retail Portfolio Management, Situated at G2, Ground floor, MSR Block, Krishe Sapphire, Hi Tech City Main Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad-SOO 081.
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : S"iD. Raghatwlu Counsel for Respond"ent : Sn S.jVageshReddg
Reserued on : 18.11.2025 Pronounced on : O2.01.2026 Uploaded to tLe website on : O5.01.2O26
ORDER
- This Application is filed u/s.rz of the securit izationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securit5r Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2oo2) challenging the action of the Respondent in issuing Possession Noti in respect of the schedule property and
to declare the ,'!'** - ::. 'L a in brief are as follows: 'r'he avermehts .""f i"Jtrl|f
The husband of the Applicant shaganti srinivas Goud availed loan facilities to a tune of Rs.15,80,000/_ and Rs.9,90,000/_ under Fixed First Non-Housing Lon Scheme in the year 20l g against the mortgage of schedule property as securit5r for the said 10ans. Thereafter due to sudden demise of Applicant,s husband, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. Both the loan accounts are insured with HDFC Life Insurance and the insured amounts were directry adjusted to the 10an accounts of the borrower' The Respondent legally declared the roan accounts of the borrower as NpA and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and trying to take possession of the schedule property without fo,owing due process of law. The Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and also to the legal heir of the borrower' The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and also not pubrished in two leading newspapers as prescribed under Rule s(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.
J.
The Respondent filed their Repry denying a, the adverse alregations made in the SA and contended that the husband of the Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent whereas the Applicant herein is the co_ borrower a10ng with Sri Maruti Enterprises and stood as guarantor to the said facilities and created mortgage against the schedule property. As the Applicant failed to repay the dues, the roan accounts were declared as NpA and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice dt. 14. ll.2}23u/s 13(2) of the Act,2002 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others and the same was published in two daily newspapers. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued notice intimating others to take possession of the schedule property t possession notice. Accordingly prayed (#".o. H * oz tnr-nzt
and perused the material brought on record.
Podnt .I\lo.(if :-
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
,:?
Wn#
9' In order to prove their contentions, the Respondent lired material documents along with the Reply l,ed by them. As per the said material documents, it is crear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.14.11.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and,sent the same to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by ttre posta-l track reports filed by the Respondent. The said demand notice was also published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. As far as the notice dt'r2'r2'2024 is concerned, it is only a notice of intimation to take possession of the secured asset but not regurar possession notice under the provisions of Section 13(a) of the SARFAES I Act, 2OO2 and so, no question of publishing the said notice in the newspapers arises as alleged by the Applicant. Further, the Respondent has not issued any notice dt'23'O2'2024 u/s 13(4) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 which is in challenge in the present SA. so, there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the alleged notice dt.23.o2.2024 said to have been issued by the Respondent and the notice dt. 1 2 . l 2.2024 is onry a notice of intimation to the Applicant for taking possession of the secured asset. Hence, I am of the opinion trrat the rerief 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 strictly follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sARFAEI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice against the schedule property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.
-^'€,&
ffi
4
Potnt No.(il)*
(Dictated to the p.S, transcribed. bg her,^mrr_ected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in tlrc open court on this the 2"d dag of Janiary, 2O26)
sd/(c. coPr crrArrDl PRESIDING OFrICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established any valid ground for setting aside the possession notice issued by the respondent against the schedule property?
What relief should be granted?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.R. Narasimha Rao v. Bank of BarodaReferred¶14
S.R. Narasimha Rao v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1998] 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Harshad Shantilal Modi v. D.P. SadhwaniReferred¶14
Harshad Shantilal Modi v. D.P. Sadhwani & Another, AIR 1998 Bom. 470 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shaganti Sudharani
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Gummadis Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
