Allowed

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla v. Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/137/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitisation Application, the Tribunal set aside a Possession Notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act because the respondent failed to provide proof of following due procedure. The application was decided ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Respondent Company.

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla versus Cholamandalam Investament and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.137 ot 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri lalander Kalakuntla, s/o K. Yadhagir, male, aged about 50 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.10-27/5/A/t, Reddygudem, Alair, Yadhadri district - 508 101.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd, Situated at Dare House,2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001.

¶9

Represented by its Authorised officer Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Parties: Counsel for Applicant Shri D. Raghavulu Respondent Exparte Reserved on t3.07.2026 Pronounced on t5.07.2026 Uploaded in website on 15.07.2026

(SA. No.137l202s)

ORDER

The applicant filed Securitisation^{Application under Section 17 of the} securitisation and^{Reconstructionof FinancialAssets and Enforcement} of Security Interest^{Act, 2OO2 challengingthe Possessionnotice dated} 2!.02.2025 issued by^{respondent bank underSARFAESIAct and} without following the^{rules, provisions, regulations and procedures as} prescribed under SARFAESI Act.

¶15

The case of the applicant^{in briefis that applicant herein availedterm} loanofRS,l8.oolakhsin202lfromrespondentbankandwasregular in repaying the instalments.^{While things stood thus, on 04'06'2026} SomepersonsvisitedtheschedulepropertyanddemandedtoVacate and hand over^{the physical possession of property' It is submitted} thattherespondentbankfailedtofollowthedueprocessoflawand issued the^{possessionnotice in respect ofschedulepropertyof} application^{which is illegal and arbitraryand in violation of SARFAESI} Actandrulesmadethereunder.Therespondentbankfailedtoissue/ Servethepossessionnoticeandrespondentbankalsofailedtoaffix the^{possessionnotice at the conspicuous place of the property and also} failed to^{publish in two leading newspapersand thereby not followed} the^procedure ir.escribed^{underRule8(1) and (2)' It is contendedthat} obtained orders^{in crr Mp 58/20':.'""0} Ir,furd}$,'::"U."rso Masistrate, Bhonsir^{district'Hence} ,ts =".X+?B1er,{ffrief+lui.iut -t:- ^ J

¶16

(SA. No.13712025)

¶17

prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by respondent Company under SARFAESI Act,2002. Hence the SA.

¶18

Notice served to Respondent. Respondent called absent and set exparte.

¶19

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶20

Now the point for consideration is

¶21

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the Possession Notice dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Respondent Company against the schedule property?

¶22

ii) To What Relief?

¶23

Point no.i)

¶24

As stated supra, the Respondent Company remained ex-parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to the following of due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder while enforcing the security interest over the application schedule property by the Respondent Company, the present Securitisation Application has to be allowed by setting aside the Possession Notice dt.21.q2.2025 issued by the Respondent Company u/s.13(4) of 2 against the application schedule property. S&nis poi accordingly.

¶25

4-t JUt 'fff ;, l{' ;'1'6*',. _

¶26

(sA.No.137l202s)

¶27

Point no.ii)

¶28

In the result, the^{present Securitisation Application is allowedby} setting aside the Possession^{Notice dt.21.02.2025issued u/s.13(4)} of the SARFAESI Act,^{2002, by the Respondent Companyagainst the} application schedule Property.

¶29

B. The Interlocutory^{Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed} of. No order as to costs.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected,^{signed and pronouncedbY me in the} open court on this the 19h^{day ot luly, 2026)}

¶32

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

,4" ";qq&
o 4-9 ,tut wn *
G1 ,- ./- .{r.
j
^V l./
\fudfi

¶34

¶35

t". i\ I

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla v. Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla v. Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shakthi Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr. Gajjala Saptagiri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Moulding Works

Canara Bank versus M/S. Goshen Exim

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited