Dismissed

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRT16 Apr 2026SA/196/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an interim application seeking a stay on physical possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, the single judge held that since the property was already sold and the relief was pending in parallel proceedings regarding delay condonation, the applicant could not re-agitate the same issues. Consequently, the application was rejected for lack of prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

The interim application for stay on physical possession is rejected and disposed of as devoid of merit.

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra versus Cholamandalam Investment and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai At: DRI- II, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No.1259 of 2026 In Securitisation Application No.196 of 2026

¶3

Sr. No.7 Decided on : 16.04.2026

¶4

Mr Sukhvinder Singh Samra

¶5

...APPLICANT/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company^{...RESPONDENT/s} Limited

¶8

Argued By –

¶9

Mr B. K. Bali, Ms Venna Naik and Mr Gaurav Shetye, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr Alok Mishra and Ms Juilee Modak, Advocates for Respondent.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No.1259 of 2026.

¶13

By way of I.A. No.1259 of 2026, the Applicant prays to restrains the Respondent Bank from taking physical possession of Ground Floor + 1^st Floor to 2^nd Floor, in plot no. 126, Sector 19, C zone No.5/207, Groma Marg, Vashi-

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

400703 (for short the “said property”) scheduled on 17.04.2026.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant paying the EMIs due regularly till the beginning of the year 2025 but thereafter, the EMIs could not be paid. He further submitted that the Applicant is ready to deposit Rs.50 lakhs to show bonafide as he is willing to settle the matter amicably.

¶17

Ld. Advocate also submitted that despite the non-service of notice under Section 13(2), the Respondent has proceeded to issue possession notice under Section 13(4). The Respondent has obtained the order from Ld. CMM by suppressing material facts. The Respondent is not proceeding in accordance with provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence, stay should be granted.

¶18

Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that earlier the Applicant had filed S.A. (D) No.1596 of 2025 before this Tribunal in which he challenged the notice under Section 13(2) dated 23.05.2025 and notice under Section 13(4) dated 13.08.2025 in respect of said property. That S.A. was dismissed in the year 2025 and the Chamber Appeal was

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

also filed after much delay. So, M.A. No.20 of 2026 is pending for condonation of delay in Chamber Appeal before this Tribunal and without withdrawing that M.A. and Chamber Appeal, the Applicant is seeking the same relief regarding the demand notice and 13(4) notice by this present S.A. No.196 of 2026 which is not permissible in law as the Applicant cannot be permitted to re-agitate issues already raised in earlier proceedings.

¶21

Ld. Advocate also submitted that demand notice under Section 13(2) was duly dispatched to the Applicant and other concerned parties at their last known addresses as provided to the Respondent. However, at one of the addresses, the notices were returned with the remark “addressee left without instructions” i.e., proper service in the eyes of law. Ld. Advocate also submitted that the Respondent had successfully sold the said property in the fourth auction held on 27.02.2026 for a consideration of Rs.4.09 crores. The successful auction purchaser has paid the entire sale consideration and sale certificate has already been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. Hence, prayer should be rejected.

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

¶24

The Applicant has not withdrawn the M.A. No.20 of 2026 for condonation of delay in the Chamber Appeal which was filed for the restoration of the S.A. (D) No.1596 of 2025. The Applicant cannot be permitted to seek the same relief in two parallel proceedings. The said property has already been sold and sale certificate has already been issued.

¶25

In the wake of foregoing discussion, this Tribunal does not find any prima facie case in favour of the Applicant. Balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the Applicant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1259 of 2026 is devoid of merit and hence, rejected.

¶26

10.Accordingly, I.A. No.1259 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) At: DRT-II, Mumbai

¶28

I/c PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, MUMBAI

¶29

Tejas

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra v. Cholamandalam Investment 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Valens Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Deshmukh Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India

Ms Jyoti Paper Udyog Limited And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Shri Nilesh Hansraj Gupta versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Others