Mansi Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Delhi HC4 May 2026W.P.(C)/5879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC; Jasmeet Singh J; 04.05.2026; W.P.(C) 5879/2026; Mansi Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd; Article 226 writ; SARFAESI attachment of non-mortgaged second-floor property (G-2, Vishnu Garden); DRT gave no relief; matter pending before DRAT; DRAT held equally efficacious remedy under SARFAESI Act 2002; petition disposed with liberty to approach DRAT; Rs. 22,50,000/- damages sought but not granted; order dated 09.01.2024 (possession) sought to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRAT and exercise her available legal rights; the DRAT is requested to adjudicate the petitioner's application expeditiously. ¶¶37

Mansi Sharma Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRAT and exercise her available legal rights; the DRAT is requested to adjudicate the petitioner's application expeditiously.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's second-floor property at G-2, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi — purchased by registered Sale Deed, never mortgaged with the respondent, and with no loan availed from the respondent — was wrongly attached under SARFAESI proceedings. +1 more

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is pending before the DRAT, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to press her petition and application for stay before the DRAT, being the equally efficacious remedy.

¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J), W.P.(C) 5879/2026 & CM APPLs 28859-28860/2026, decided 04.05.2026 — Mansi Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Petitioner claimed her second-floor property at G-2, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi, bought by registered Sale Deed, was never mortgaged with the respondent and no loan was availed from it, yet it was attached under SARFAESI proceedings. Prayers included restoration of possession, cessation of interference, quashing of the order dated 09.01.2024 authorizing possession, damages of Rs. 22,50,000/-, injunction and interest. She had earlier challenged the attachment before the DRT without relief, and the matter was pending before the DRAT. Holding: since the matter was pending before the DRAT, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the appropriate remedy was to press the petition and application for stay before the DRAT, being the equally efficacious remedy. Disposition: petition disposed of with liberty to approach the DRAT; DRAT requested to adjudicate the application expeditiously.

¶1

$~89

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5879/2026 & CM APPL. 28859/2026, CM APPL. 28860/2026

¶4

MANSI SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sohit Bhardwaj, Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Mr. Pardeep Kumar Karhana, Mr. Ishu Jain, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE

¶8

COMPANY LIMITED .....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Navneet Thakran, Mr. Aditya Awasthi, Advs.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 04.05.2026

¶14

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶15

“1. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing restoration of possession of the Suit Property to the petitioner;

¶16

2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent to cease all interference with the petitioner's property;

¶17

3. Issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent from further executing the impugned order insofar as it affects the petitioner;

¶18

4. Quash the order dated 09.01.2024 to the extent it authorizes possession of the petitioner's property;

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 12:13:40

¶21

5. Award and Direct Respondent to pay compensation and damages of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the Petitioner, or such higher amount as may be found just and proper upon final adjudication, on account of prolonged wrongful dispossession and consequential losses;

¶22

6. Grant a perpetual injunction restraining interference with the petitioner's property rights;

¶23

7. Pass restitutionary directions for restoration of possession, return of keys/access, removal of obstructions, and restoration of full, peaceful and vacant enjoyment of the Petitioner’s independent second-floor portion, if not already restored;

¶24

8. Award pendente lite and future interest on the quantified compensation amount at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;

¶25

9. Grant interim relief for immediate restoration of possession;

¶26

10. Award costs and expenses;...”

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner being second floor, G-2, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi, has been purchased by the petitioner as per the registered Sale Deed. Additionally, the said property was never mortgaged with the respondent and the petitioner has also not availed any loan from the respondent. Despite the same, the property of the petitioner has been attached under the SARFAESI proceedings.

¶28

The petitioner has challenged the same before the Debt Recovery

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 12:13:40

¶31

Tribunal (“ DRT ”), wherein the petitioner did not get any relief. The petitioner thereafter approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“ DRAT ”).

¶32

¶33

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶34

Mr. Chopra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶35

Since the matter is pending before the DRAT, I am of the view that under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to press his petition and application for stay before the DRAT, being the equally efficacious remedy.

¶36

The present petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRAT and exercise her available legal rights.

¶37

The DRAT is requested to adjudicate the application of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶38

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶39

MAY 4, 2026/sp

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 12:13:40

Mansi Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansi Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Rajnish Kumar Ex Constable Gd Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs Border Security Force & Anr.

Dr. N.Emayavaramban Vs UOI & Ors.

Devanshu Mishra Vs University of Delhi through Its Vice-Chancellor & Ors.

Sh. Binod Kumar Vs (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Jasminder Singh Sikka and Anr. Vs Director of Education and Anr.

Shri Ram Nayan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Riyanshi Jha (Minor) Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shreyansh Tyagi and Ors. Vs National Testing Agency and Ors.

Tanuj Chaudhary Vs the Sovereign School & Ors.

Jai Bhagwan Sharma Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Master Adhiraj Singh Jamwal through His Mother Mrs Pooja Kapoor Vs Delhi Public School, Mathura Road & Ors.

Mamram Educational Society & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority