Allowed

Smt Gulab Saraf v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

DRT23 Jul 2025SA/303/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application challenging a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed to prove affixture of the notice. Consequently, the application was allowed by quashing the notice.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was allowed by quashing the possession notice dated 03.10.2022.

Smt Gulab Saraf versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN^{THEDEBTfTLEY??V#;YATRIBUNAL- 1I}

¶2

DATED^{THIS THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JULY' 2025} L'LB'^{(Hons')', M'A'} PRESENT^{: sH, PAMESHWAR,[RH&F;3S['',}

¶3

SECURMSATION^{APPUCATIONNO. 303 OF 2022}

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.^{Gulab Saraf} w/o larc Sanjeev^{Kumar >dtdI} Bhaskar ir;' ^l: l;z:^{ResidencYi fil,:,Z:;i f ;i} Na malagundu,^HYderabad'

¶6

.......APPlicant.

¶7

And

¶8

The chotamandalam^{Investment and} Finance Co.^{Ltd. RePbY its} Authorised^{Officer, Dare House} 2, NSC^{Bose Road, Parrys} Chennai-600^001.

¶9

.....Res?ondent.

¶10

Counsel for^{the Applicant : M/s' T' SridharReddY'} Counsel for^{Respondent : Mr' Vishnu Grover'}

¶11

-r Q-B-913:-

¶12

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation ApPlicationu/s'17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafterreferred} to as "SARFAESI Act^{2OO2') assailing possession noticedated} 03.10.2022 issued by^{the respondentagainst the SA schedule} properties. Nl"t'

¶13

¶14

sA got/2o22

¶15

The case of the apD sanjeev Kumar ,r*:':: bltr'.it aool'tunt is the wire or respondent bank. Late ;";;:"., ::.1* _credit racitities rrom ."JJ'.j::::,:1 ilil:,.^j:T:, ff ,::;..,T lTil:j tl" appricant and minor chirdren. Respondent o;,n""o ;::: to the roan ;;;; #T::':-::"" appricant as a euarantor rqquest, respondun,^{"n'-^'"lt} ""';eev Kumar saraf. oespite fumished the detairs of roan account. 41 or u ,r66"r'"]-lo^tdemanded vacation or the sA schedu'e il-;;"r:'::'-":-t:nt possession noti.u aut"o 1'-11'2022 and handed over a copy of the issuance o, o"run^{j'''o'2022 ' Applicantcame} to know of notice dated 14'07'2022 only after receiving the posr"rsi.d not't" on 72'77'2022' The loan account is a standard o,'n but not NPA' However, respondent crassified tne roan accoul as NPA illegally and without following RBI guiderines. rn" .",' Rures 8(1) and 8(2) in servine,,. *o,,",illt"J.',j;';J'ffi::.

¶16

The respondent filed reply statement. The submissions of the respondent in brief are u the sA is liable to be dismissed as the sA is fired with r",." u'"t n eve r req u ested r". ",r,,lo.l1i,lj;ilffi -A ffi :::ili: Respondent has sent dem rand notice u/s 73(2) to the applicant by registered post. with the stipurated time or 60 ff:'J:[::'#::,,.],)j;:l; respondent issued possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The possession notice dated 03.10.2022 has been published in two leading newspapers on 07.10.2022 and affixed on the secured assets. There is no infirmity or violation of any rules in the securitisation measures iniuated by resoonOentTfu*>S

¶17

sA3O3l2022

¶18

Applicant's right of^{advancingargumentsforfeited videdocket} order dated 13.06.2025.^{Heard learned counsel appearing for} the respondent.^{Perusedthe materialplaced on record'}

¶19

Learned counsel for the^{respondent submitsthat the contentions} of applicant as to^{violationof provisionsof Sections 13(2)and} 13(4) of the SARFAESI^{Act are false and baseless' Respondent} placed on record proof of compliance^{of Section 13(2) of the} SARFAESI Act and^{Section13(4) and Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the} Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As regards the} NPA classification,^{learned counsel woulddeny of violationof} RBI guidelines. Hence^{the contentions raised in the SA are} baseless and invented^{for the purpose of flling the SA'} Accordingly, learned^{counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA in} the interest of^justice.

¶20

Now the^points that arise^{for adjudicationare:} -

¶21

Whether the APPlicant made out i) any valid ground for^quashingthe possession notice dated 03. I 0.2022 13(4) or 'i#,!,,,,Xiff1 nse,ction To what relieJ? ii)

¶22

Point No.(i)t

¶23

One of the main contentions of the^{applicantis violationof Rule} 8(1) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002'While} respondent^{placed proof} of service of demand^{vide material} papers at pages 39 to 42 and service of possession notice by registered post,^publication in two newspapers vide^materialat pages 43 to 49, it failed to produce any material in support of its ffiof

¶24

¶25

sA 3O3 / 2022

¶26

submission towards aFfixture of possession notice. Since affixture of possession notice being a mandatory requirement, applicant is able to make out a valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated }3.LO.ZOZZ. Accordingly, the SA deserves to be allowed by quashing the possession notice dated 03.tO.2OZ2.

¶27

Point No.(ii):

¶28

In the result, the SA is allowed by quashing the possession notice dated 03.10.2022 issued by the respondent. However, this order does not preclude the respondent Company from issuing possession notice u/s 13(4) afresh stricfly in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2oo2 there under.

¶29

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Site.

¶31

(Dictdted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by fie in the open court on this the 2!d doy oI.luly, 2025.)

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

Smt Gulab Saraf v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gulab Saraf v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

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

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kamal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Teja Sri Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus S Jagannath Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Vds Prakasa Rao Palepu

shilpa agarwal versus Indusind Bank Limited

Maximus Arc Limited versus M/S. Aishwarya Cottons Private Limited