The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by a defaulting borrower seeking to quash an Advocate Commissioner notice for possession. The court held that the demand and possession notices were duly served and published, thus following due procedure.
The Securitization Application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD
DATED THIS THE 1OTII DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No.49O OF 2024
Chand Pasha S/o Nabi Saheb Aged 36 years, Occ:Business R/o H.No.4-6-30l L/7 /2, Baba Nagar Nacharam, uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.
versus
""A,Plicant'
M/s Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co. Ltd. Rep by its Authorized Omcer Chola Crest, C54-55. and Super B-4 Thri Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy Chennai-600 032 and Branch Office at Ground Floor, Gowraplaza Metro Station H.No.1-8-384 and 385, Sardar patel Road Near Rasoolpura,patigadda, Begumpet Hyderabad 500 003
...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent : M/s Vishnu Grover & Associates
-:ORDER:-
HP'uqt'
Page2 of 3
sa No'490/2024
Page 3 of 3
sA N0.490/2024
ii) To what relief?
Point No.(i):
7, Reportedly the Warrant stood expired and hence the SAhas become infructuous as far as contention onphysicalpossession of secured asset is concerned.
B. The respondent filed sufficientproof as to service ofdemand notice andpossession notice. The applicant has not disputedthese documents. In spite of receipt of thenotices, theapplicant is falsely claiming under a sworn alfidavit that no notice was servedprior to issuance of advocate commissioner notice. Hence I amnot inclined to entertain any contention on minor deviation, if any, in theprocedure followed by the respondent. SA is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
Point No.(ii):
(Typed to my dictotion by the P5, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7o'h doy of September, 2025).
P6"u'-s
ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash any measures of the respondent including taking physical possession of the secured property.
Whether the Securitization Application is liable to be allowed or dismissed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Chand Pasha
M/s Cholamandal Investments and Finance Co. Ltd.
Mesw Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
