Dismissed

Naresh Dairy Farm v. Protium Finance Limited

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal rejects an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the secured creditor's physical possession proceedings. The Tribunal held that the notices were duly served and published, and no interference with the proceedings for possession was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the possession proceedings was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Naresh Dairy Farm versus Protium Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE I gTH DAYOF FEBRUARY, 2C26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.81./2c25

¶5

Naresh Dairy Farm Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Naresh Yadala, H.No. 12-15-306, Manikeshwar Nagar, OU Campus, Circle, Hyderabad-SOO 007..

¶6

Naresh Dairy farm Through its Proprietor Sri Naresh yadala, Residential house bearing part of Municipal No.4-54, Sy.No.2S4lA, Borgaon (P) village, Mugpal Mandal, Nizamabad District-SO3230

¶7

Sri Naresh Yadala

¶8

D.No.4-54, Sy.No.254lA, Borgaon (P) village, Mugpal Mandal, Nizamabad District-503230

¶9

Sri Naresh yadala,

¶10

Boraon village, Mugpal Mandal, Nizambad

¶11

Yada-la Biramma, D.No.4-54,

¶12

Borgaon (P) village, Mugpal Mandal, Nizamabad District-So3230

¶13

6.Yadala Biramma,

¶14

Municipal No.4-54, Sy.No.254lA, Borgaon (P) village, Mugpal Mandal, Nizamabad District-SO3230

¶15

.. . Applicants

¶16

Versus

¶17

Protium Finance Ltd. (Erstwhile Grown Source Finan Technologies P.Ltd.) Regional office at TI 9 Towers I^g Fr8 202fi Unit 11O1, 1lft floor, T19 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indira Nagar, Rani Gunj, Hyderabad-500 003

¶18

Coursel for the Applicants : Etgmos Legal Services^p.Ltd Counsel for Respondent : Ms.Dutara Pallaui Reserued on 13.01.2026 Pronounced on 19.02.2026 Uploaded on 19.02.2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Id.CJM, Nizamabad in Crl.M.P.No.50O 124 and also to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶21

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶22

The Applicants availed Emerging Enterprises LAp scheme of Rs.2S lakhs from the Respondent and regularly paying the instalments. But due to severe financial crisis, the Applicants could not pay some instalments. Without considering the request of the Applicants for regularization of the loan account, the Respondent declared the loan account as NPA illegally. Without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Re spondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt. 14.1O.2O24 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶23

J. The Respondent liled Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the ded that the Applicant firm represented by its with his mother Smt. Yadala Bheeramma aviiiled .25 lakhs and created mortgage against the never paid any instalments and so,

¶24

the loan account was classified as NpA on OL.OZ.2O24 as per the guidelines of RBI. subsequently, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.15.O7.2024 and sent the same to the Applicants through Regd. post and the said notice was arso affixed on the schedule property and also published in two daily newspapers. when the Applicants failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.14.1O.2O24 u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Acq 2OO2 and, sent the said notice to the Applicants and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and the same was affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. The Respondent also issued Sale Notice dt.16.1O.2O24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding against the secured asset u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶25

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

¶26

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶27

utlretlrcr the Applicants haue established ang ualid. grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg th.e Respondent for taking phgsical possession of tte schedule propertg u/ s 14 of ttrc SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶28

I g FE8 2026

¶29

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶30

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed business loan from the Respondent and created equitabre mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶31

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without following Rule 8(l)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶32

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and. Rules made thereunder in issuing a[ the statutory notices to the Applicants and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶33

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classi$ring the loan account of the Applicants as NPA, the Respondents issued demand notice dt.75.O7.2024 2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal t and the said notice was published in AS by the copies ofpaper publication filed ?0lfu" is valid service of demand notice on the

¶34

Applicants. When the Applicants failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.l4.l}.2o24 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r g(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt. 14.1O.2O24 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid. Thereafter, the respondent also issued Sale Notice dt. 16. l O.2O24 but the Applicants have not challenged the said notice in the present SA.

¶35

¶36

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Id.CJM, Nizamabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing Crl.M.p.No.500/24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. Ld.CJM, Nizamabad after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5z.

¶37

So, co e circumstances, I am of the opinion that the to any relief as there are no merits in the SA.

¶38

jE€e no ting interference of this Tribunal with the

¶39

prgceedinls thq- lbt Re spondent for taking physical possession C"f ift,?$ZP

¶40

of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,20o2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶41

Polnt No.(tl):-

¶42

In the result, sA 8l /2s is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶43

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced" bg me in the open court on this the 79th dag of February, 2026)

¶46

sd/_ (G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

***-#P

¶48

Naresh Dairy Farm v. Protium Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Dairy Farm v. Protium Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chetan Textiles

B Sanjiv Rai versus State Bank of India

Sri Katkuri Shesha Reddy versus State Bank of India

Supriya Bandam versus Cholamandalam Investment

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durga Prasad Polavarapu