Dismissed

Mr Paravelli Rajesh v. Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

DRT11 Dec 2025SA/193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application challenging the secured creditor's proceedings to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The court upheld the Debt Recovery Tribunal's appointment of an advocate commissioner, finding the creditor strictly complied with statutory notice requirements under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed; subsequent interlocutory applications standing disposed of with no order as to costs.

Mr Paravelli Rajesh versus Cholamandalam… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE I 1TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.193/2025

¶4

Mr.Parvelli Rajesh, S/o P.Shankar, Aged 40 years, Occ:business, R/o 15-15-0LOO2, Zilla Stores Road, Near Sub Station, Old Mancherial, Mancherial-S04 2O8.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer Chola Crest, C54-55& Super B-4, Thiru-Vl-k

¶8

Industrial Estate, Gulndy, Chennai-600 032.. ... Respondent Bank

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Si P.Pauan Raghau Counsel for the Respondent M/ s Vi.shnu Grouer & Associates Reserued on 07.1 1.2025 Pronounced on 11.12.2025 Uploaded to website on 11.12.2025

¶10

ORDER

¶11

1' This Application is liled u/s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2oo2l challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commlsstoner to the orders of Ld.Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Mancherial in cri.M.p.n and to declare the same as null and void.

¶12

11 a[t,2W

¶13

2.^,', The by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶14

¶15

The Applicant availed Home loan of Rs.23.50 lakhs and top-up loan of Rs. 16 lakhs from the Respondent in the year 2023 by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter could not pay some instalments due to loss in the business. The loan accounts of the Applicant was illegally classified as NPA by the Respondent. The Respondent without issuing demand notice and possession notice, straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner issued vacate notice dt.29.O4.2O25 to the Applicant for taking over the physical possession of the schedule property. The impugned possession notice is not published in two leading newspapers and the same is not affixed on the schedule property. The Applicant is willing to clear the entire dues if some time is granted. Hence the SA.

¶16

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that initially, the Applicant availed loan of Rs.23.50 lakhs for business purpose and later Top Up loan of Rs.16 lakhs from the Respondent and smt.pravelli Ramadevi who is mother of the Applicant deposited title deeds in respect ofthe schedule property as securit5r for the said loans. Thereafter, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent declared the loan accounts of the Applicant as NPA. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.03.O8.2O24 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, sent the said notice to the Applicant and others and the s€une was received by the mortgagor and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers.. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25'11.2024 u/s l3(a) of the Act,2002 and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule '_ leroperty. when the Applicant resisted to handover the possession of the ., -.'^{''secured''asset,th8Respondent} initiated proceedings before the Ld.prl. i:^, s..titilBf,&efl5Mantqprial, u/s t4 of the SARFAEST Act, 2xO2for taking 'l physical posse5i$,.of the schedure property through advocate "+!-.i-::^-1 -:1 g1i.j,, . ,. . .f 2 'iji! ';'r-:''

¶17

commissioner. Thus the Respondent has duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and there are no violations. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the sA.

¶18

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

Wlrcther the Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging tlw proce eding s initiated bg the Respondent for taking phgsical possession of the scttedule propertA through aduocate

¶21

commissioner?

¶22

u. To what relief?

¶23

Polnts lVo.(if &(ii):-

¶24

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

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan facilities from the Respondent and Mrs.p.Rama Devi, mother of the Applicant created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan accounts were declared as NpA.

¶26

con tion of the Applicant is that without issuing demand

¶27

notice and on to the Applicant, the Respondent is trying to take

¶28

physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent are illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶29

Per contra, Respondent contended that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and the Respondent also followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in initiating steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶30

The Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them to establish that the Respondent scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.og.og.2o24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and the mortgagor through Regd.post and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers and thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant and others. Thereafter the Respondent issued possession notice dt.25.l r.2024 and the said possession notice was sent to the Appticant and others through Regd. post and the said notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent and the same was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002 in taking po-gqession of the schedule property u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. :",,..ii ,1:,.

¶31

..1.'^trli.... ...,,^{'r i,.}

¶32

..' '^,61 'dr{ ,ltr 11. Ai9p..tn"$rovisionsof ' Section 14 ofsARFAESIAct, 2oo2, afterissuance ' 1^{1 $f[,ffiessioninoticeu/s l3(a) of the SARFAEST Act, 2oo2, the secured} .s.1./ 4 -:,,.1 ' Ii11'-:-" .-"! ' ":!:"J't '- --...-l...li-:ir

¶33

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 Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Mancherial u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Mancherial after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner issued notice dt.29.04.2}25 to the Applicant and others to vacate the schedule property. So considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner are perfectly legal and valid. This point is answered accordingly.

¶34

Potnt No.(il)r

¶35