Dismissed

J Mukund v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

DRT2 Jun 2026SA/82/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed an application challenging the recovery of a secured creditor's physical possession of mortgaged property. The Tribunal found the creditor complied with demand and possession notice requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002, rejecting the claim of illegal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed as there were no merits in the challenge to the enforcement proceedings.

J Mukund versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{1 AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶3

sA.No.82./2025

¶4

J.Mukund, S/o Kanakappa, aged³⁶ Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/ o H.No.^1-67, Bheempur village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District. ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Hinduja Housing Finance^Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Regional Oflice at 2'd floor, T19 Towers, Indira Nagar, Karbala Maidan, Ranigunj, Sec.bad-50O^003. . .. Respondent

¶7

Counsel for the APPlicants : SnT. Sridhar Reddg Counsel for Respondent : SiT. Randhir Singh Reserued on :08.05.2O26 Pronounced on :02.O6.2026 Uploaded on :03.06.2026

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This application is frled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of^{the SARFAESIAct,} 2002, challenging ted by the Respondent^for taking physical e property through Advocate commissioner Ld.CJM, Narayanpetⁱⁿ CrI.M.P.No.24 illegal and void. 2. The averments the application, are that: ! -' !', The Applicant "u"iUa, hoi:l from the Respondent and the Applicant has''been regularly. In fact, the

¶10

Respondent^{has been chargingheavyinterest on interest by violating} the terms of^{sanctionand also the guidelines of RBI' In the meanwhile'} some persons^{claiming to be the recoveryagents of Respondent along} with advocate^{commissioner visitedthe schedulepropertypursuantto} the orders of^{Ld.CJM, Narayanpet. Withoutserving demand notice and} possession notice,^{the Respondentstraightwayproceeded for taking} physical possession^{of scheduleproperty and so, the said proceedings} are not^{legal and valid. The impugned possessionnotice was not} published in two^{dailynewspapersand also not affixed on the schedule} property as contemplated^{:ulrS(1)&(2)ofSecurity Interest} (Enforcement)^{Rules,20O2. Hencethe SA'}

¶11

¶12

The Respondent^{filed their Reply denyingall the adverse allegations} made in the^{SA and contendedthat the Applicant herein along with his} family members^{availed loan of Rs'8 takhs and created mortgagein} respect of the^{scheduleproperty in favour of the Respondentin security} to the repayment^{of the said loan' After availingthe loan'Applicant} committed^{defaultin repaymentof loan dues and so' the Respondent} declared the^{loan accountof the Applicantas NPA on 05 'O7 '2024 as per} the guidelines^{of RBI. Accordingly,the Respondentissueddemand} notice dt.O2.0^{A.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESIAct' 2OO2 ard the said} notice was sent^{to the Applicant through Regd'postand the said notice} was also^{publishedin two daily newspapers'Thereafter'the Respondent} issued^{possessionnotice dt'lg 'tO} '2024^{and the said notice was} published in two^{dailynewspapers and the same was also affixed on the} schedule^{property. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the} SARFAESI^{Act, 2OO2for takingphysicalpossessionof the schedule} pursuant to the^{orders of} property through a spondent has^{dulY followedthe} Ld.CJM, rdingly, ResPondent PraYed procedure to dismiss 02 JU|\l 2.026 *

¶13

and Ld.Counsel^{for the} 4. Heard Ld. on record. Respondent.

¶14

Now the points that arise for consideration^are

¶15

i. uthether the Applicant has establi.shed ang^{ualid grounds} for challenging the^proceedings initiated^bg tlw^Respondent for^taking phgsical possession oftlrc schedule propertg u/ s 14 oftte SARFAES/ Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶16

ii. To tuhat relief ?

¶17

Point No.(if :-

¶18

During the course of arguments, Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant and [d.} Counsel for the Respondent reiterated^{their respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶19

The undisputed facts of the case are that^{the Applicantavailed housing} loan from the Respondent and^{created mortgageagainstthe schedule} property and thereafter, committed default in repaying^{the loan dues and} so, the Respondent initiated^{proceedingsunder the SARFAESIAct,2OO2} for taking physical^{possession of the scheduleproperty.}

¶20

¶21

The specilic contention of the Applicant^is that^{the Respondent without} serving demand notice and^{possessionnotice and withoutfollowingRule} 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 2002, straightaway,^{initiatedproceedingsfor taking} physical possession of the schedule^property through^advocate commissioner u/ s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct, 2OO2 ard so, the said} proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the^{schedule property} are null and void.

¶22

Per contra, Respondent contended^{that admittedly, the Applicant availed} loan from the Respondent against the^{mortgageof the scheduleproperty.} Applicant committed default in repaying^the loan agreement and so, the ioan account guidelines of RBI and the Respondent notice to the Applicant by dulY under the provisions of SARFAESI

¶23

Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also in taking physical possession of the schedule properties u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶24

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 after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, Respondent issued demand notice dt.02.08.2O24 uls l3(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thus, there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.19.1O.2O24 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and 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 copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed Rule S(1)&(2) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice.

¶25

As per the provisions of Section t4 of SARFAESI Act,^2OO2, after^issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) 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^{securedassets.} In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and^{possessionnotice to} the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor,^approached Ld.CJM, Narayanl u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing hppointment of advocate commissioner for taking r- ';' 1 r:i :.r ! ,',physical ."q.^{possbssion ciPt\p} ji^{schedule property. Ld.CJM, Narayanpet after} ": ,i^{ppnsidbdng'lhe.ffflSterifi} -'t 6 a "-I:;^{i\8n record, appointedadvocatecommissioner for} i i^{tal<4g physical} .. -')'-!^{pos.s.e9s,ion} . i:^{of the scheduleproperty and the said advocate} Comfi.!+qioner vipitba, the schedule^property and^{issued. notice to the} Applicaht , to, vacate"''the schedule :,' property and the said^notice\Mas

¶26

admittedly served on the Applicant, so, the said^{proceedings are perfectly} legal and valid.

¶27

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶28

Point No.(tl)r

¶29

In the result, SA 82125 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶30

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

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶32

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2"d daA of June,2026)

¶33

sd/(G. GOPI CHAilDI PRESIDING OTFICER

¶34

!i,;,nx#*, ).1

J Mukund v. Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Mukund 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mr. Pathan Mahaboob Subhani

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India

J Surender versus Union Bank of India

Panyala Pushpalatha and Another versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bellatrix Wagon Traders

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Latha Temple Works and Bhagyalaxmi Kala Mandir